• 1 “ JK 2382 ' * - 1 - 

,,' • B6 j Vo. 12 . 

Copy 1 

D1Y1U ' HISTORY OF PROHIBITION 


Prohibition Reform Party. 

.■> 

WITH 

APPENDIX, NOTES, AND COMMENTS, 



JAMES BLACK. 


3 


PUBLISHED BY 

THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

OF THE 

PROHIBITION REFORM PARTY, 
at 58 Reade St, New Yobk. 




















V 




*• 



\ 


PROHIBITION CAMPAIGN DOCUMENTS. 


T HE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE of the Prohibition Re¬ 
form Party, having examined the publications of the National Tempe¬ 
rance Society, recommend the following valuable documents for general 
circulation. They are non-partisan, but they ably advocate the principle of 
Prohibition, and lienee can be effectively used to promote the success of both 
the party and the cause: 


Alcohol and the State. A discus¬ 
sion of the problem of law as applied to 
the liquor-traffic. By Robert C. Pitman, 
LL.D., Associate Judge of Superior Court 
of Massachusetts. 12mo, 411 pages .. .$1 
Our Wasted Resources. The Miss¬ 
ing Link in the Temperance Reform, 
giving the most valuable statistics ever 
published. By Dr. Wm. Hargreaves. 
12mo, 202 pages. Price, in cloth, $1 25; 

paper edition. 

The Prohibitionist’s Text-Book. 
12mo, 312 pages. Cloth, $1 00; paper... 
This volume contains the most valuable 
arguments, statistics, testimonies, and ap¬ 
peals, showing the iniquity of the license 
system and the right and duty of prohibi¬ 
tion. 

On Alcohol. By B. W. Richardson, 
M.A.. M.D., F.R.S., of London, with an 
introduction by Dr. Willard Parker, of 
New York. 12mo, 190 pages. Cloth, 

75 cents ; paper covers.. 

The Text-Book of Temperance. 
Historical, Biblical, Physiological, Sta¬ 
tistical, Political, and Moral. It gives a 
thorough discussion of the entire ques¬ 
tion. By Dr. F. R. Lees, F.S.A. 12mo, 
312 pages. Cloth, $1 25 ; paper edition, 
Bacchus Dethroned. 12mo, 268pages. 

By Frederick Powell. Cloth, $1; paper, 
Packet of Prohibition Documents. 
Comprising pamphlets and tracts on pro¬ 
hibition and the suppression of the liquor 

traffic, making 224 pages ... 

’Liquor Laws of the United States, 
revised and corrected, together with ex¬ 
tracts from decisions of the courts in 
New York, New Jersey, etc. 12mo, 138 

pages. 

Alcohol and the Human Brain. By 

Rev. Joseph Cook. 12mo, 24 pages_ 

Beer as a Beverage. An Address by 
Rev. G. W. Hughey, in reply to the ap¬ 
peal of the Beer Congress. 12mo, 24 

pages . 

Alcohol and the Church. 12mo, 24 
pages. By Robert C. Pitman, LL.D , 
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court 

of Massachusetts.. —.. 

Prohibition does Prohibit; or, Pro¬ 
hibition not a Failure. 12mo, 48 
pages. By J. N. Stearns. 


50 


50 

50 


25 


50 

50 


25 


25 

10 


10 


10 

10 


Temperance and Legislation. 12mo, 

24 pages. By Canon Farrar, D.I)., 

F.R.S. $010 

Suppression of the Liquor Traffic. 

A Prize Essay, by Rev. 11. D. Kitchell. 

12mo, 48 pages. . 10 

Temperance and Republican In¬ 
stitutions. By Rev. Joseph Cook. 

12mo, 36 pages. 10 

Constitutional Amendment on the 
Manufacture and Sale of Intoxi¬ 
cating Liquors. Hon. H. W. Blair. 

43 pages. 10 

A High Fence of Fifteen Bars. 24 

pages . 05 

The Throne of Iniquity. Albert 

Barnes, D.D. 22pages. 05 

Fruits of the Liquor Traffic. Sum¬ 
ner Stebbins, M.D. 24 pages. 05 

Intemperance and Crime. Chief- 

Justice Noah Davis. 24 pages. 10 

Christianity Against the Liquor 
Crime. G. T. Stewart. 24 pages. 05 


Eight-page Tracts, $0 per 1,000 : 

Maine Law Vindicated. 

Review of Ex-Governor Andrew on License. 
The Rumseller a Robber. 

Accountableness for Evils of Intemperance. 
The Evils of Beer Legislation. 

Practical Workings of Prohibition. 

The Relations of Drunkenness to Crime. 

The Legal Prohibition of the Liquor Traffic. 
Four-page Tracts, $3 per 1,000: 
Indictment of the Rum Traffic. 

The Fruits of License. 

The Ballot for Temperance. 

Natural and Reserved Rights. 

Evils of License. 

Ruin and Taxation under License. 

Why we Oppose the Traffic. 

What it all Costs. 

National Legislation. 

The Sabbath and Beer Question. 

Moral and Legal Suasion. 

The Results of Prohibition. 

Law as an Educator. 

Constitutionality and Duty of Prohibition. 
Governor of Massachusetts against License. 
The Street of Hell. 

Second Declaration of Independence. 

The Pirate Alcohol. 

Prohibition in Maine. 


For the above, address the Publishing Agent, J. N. Stearns, 58 Reade 
Street, New York City. 

G. 1\ STEW AMT, Chairman . 

C, A. IIOVEY, Sec’y Nat'l Pro. Com. 




c 































AND OF 






6 


* 



/ 




The Prohibition Reform Party. 


'C'ROM a very early period in the history of the temperance movement, the 
necessity, propriety, and duty of legislative enactments for the suppres¬ 
sion of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors were presented and 
urged upon public attention. 

Necessity for Luw Apparent at an Early ©ay. 

In 1823, Henry Ware, in an address on the “Criminality of Intemperance,” 
delivered at the eleventh anniversary of the Massachusetts Society for the Sup¬ 
pression of Intemperance, said, “that there is no man, or body of men, who 
can strike at the root of the exit but the legislature of the nation .” 

Dr. Lyman Beecher, in his justly-celebrated six sermons on “The Nature 
and Remedy for Intemperance,” delivered in 182C, says: “Intemperance in 
our land is not accidental ; it is rolling in upon us by the violation of some 
great laws of human nature. In our views and in our practice as a nation 
there is something fundamentally wrong; and the remedy, like the evil, must 
be found in the correct application of general principles. It must be a univer¬ 
sal and national remedy. What, then, is this universal, natural, and national 
remedy for intemperance ? It is the banishment of ardent spirits from the 
list of lawful articles of commerce by a correct and efficient public sentiment, 
such as has turned slavery out of half our land, and will yet expel it from the 
world.” 

Dr. Justin Edwards, in his sixth report of tho American Temperance So¬ 
ciety, on the “ Immorality of License Laws,” said in 1833: “ The point to be 
decided—to be decided by legislatures of these United States ; to be decided 
for all coming posterity, for the world, and for eternity—is, Shall the sale of 
ardent spirit, as a drink, be treated in legislation as a virtue or a vice ? Shall 
it be licensed, sanctioned by law, and perpetuated, to roll its all-pervading 
curses onward interminably, or shall it be treated, as it is in truth ,, a sin 9 ” 

In 1837 the Board of Managers of the Pennsylvania State Temperance So¬ 
ciety presented a memorial to the Convention for revising the Constitution of 
the State which concludes as follows : 

“ We earnestly solicit this Convention to incorporate into the Constitution of Pennsylvania, 
that hereafter the patronage of the State shall never be given for the purpose of a revenue , or for 
any other purpose, to the traffic in ardent spirits; that it shall not be lawful in this common¬ 
wealth for public-houses to distnbute that destructive poison .” 

In 1838 Edward C. Delavan wrote Dr. John Marsh as follows: “ Throw out 
your light; teach the people to feel that they are the law-makers. Show all the 


\ 


( 




2 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


friends of temperance the folly of sending drinking men to our legislative halls , 
and then sending them petitions to save the community from the ruinous effects 
of their own practice” 

First legislative Action. 

The “ first attack ” on “the legalized liquor-traffic ” was in the Maine Legis¬ 
lature, when, in 1837, General James Appleton presented a memorial demanding 
the abrogation of all license laws “they being the support and life of the traffic,” 
and “the entire prohibition of all sale—except for medicine and the arts”; 
and a committee reported that the law giving the right to sell ardent spirits 
should be repealed and a law prohibiting be passed. 

In 1838, a committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts recommended 
the repeal of all license laws and the entire prohibition of the sale of spiritu¬ 
ous liquors as a beverage; and a law was passed which forbade the sale of any 
spirituous or mixed liquors in less quantities than fifteen gallons. 

The same year a committee of the Legislature of New York reported that 
“ a law to prohibit the traffic in ardent spirits as a beverage was as necessary 
as a law to prevent gambling, brothels, and other public nuisances”; a bill was 
reported to the Legislature of Tennessee for the repeal of existing license laws ; 
the license laws of Connecticut were repealed, and the sale of intoxicating liquors 
was restricted and guarded ; in Rhode Island and New Hampshire option laws 
were passed, leaving with the inhabitants of towns whether any persons should 
be licensed for the sale of liquors. 

Eocal-Optlon Era. 

From 1840 to 1847 laws were enacted in different States permitting the 
voters of districts, towns, and counties to determine at the polls whether 
licenses should be granted, which privilege was gladly availed of by the peo¬ 
ple, and no-license voted, generally by large majorities—notably so in Con¬ 
necticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York. 

These laws were unstable, because there was no organized constituency to 
uphold them ; and, while marking the growth of political action, and their 
necessity as a concomitant and aid of moral effort to change drinking customs 
and reclaim the drunkard, were unsatisfactory, having failed to adequately 
reach and punish the violators, and in consequence of which, by the power of a 
united trade and the subserviency of politicians, they were repealed or nullified, 
frequently without popular consent and in defiance of friendly sentiment. 

Hence, after the most untiring efforts in disseminating information by the 
platform and press, and especially by determinately using the moral and poli¬ 
tical power of the ballot-box, in 1851 the Maine Law, as drafted by Neal Dow, 
passed the Legislature, and was hailed everywhere by the friends of tempe¬ 
rance as perfect in its principles and adaptation. 

This law regarded Lhe sale of liquors for drinking purposes as injurious to 
the common welfare, and hence to be suppressed. Liquors held for unlawful 
sale were to be seized, condemned, and destroyed ; and the implements of the 
trade, with the liquors, were made witnesses, and their possession deemed 
prima facie evidence of guilt. 

Maine Law States. 

Thus, the Maine Law became the model for prohibitory legislation and an 
accepted object of temperance effort. The following table shows what States 


The Prohibition Party , 


3 


have had prohibitory liquor laws, the date when first passed, the political com¬ 
plexion of the Legislature passing, and of the Governors approving them : 

Dates Political Charac- 


Order. 

State . 

of 

Enactments. 

Governor. 

Political Status. 

ter of tlbe 
Legislature . 


Maine. 

1846.. 

. .Anderson_ 


• Democrat. 


Delaware. 

.Feb., 1847.. 

.. Houston...., 


• Whig. 

1st.... 

. .Maine. 

.June 2, 1851.. 
. March, 1852.. 

.. Hubbard_ 


• Democrat. 

2d. 

. .Minnesota. 

.. Ramsey .... 

.. Democrat.. 

• Democrat. 

3d. 

. .Rhode Island. 

.March 7,1852.. 

. .Allen. 


. Democrat. 

4th.... 

. .Massachusetts_ 

.May 22, 1852.. 

.. Winthrop ... 


,Dem. and Fr. Soil. 

5th.... 

. .Vermont. 

.Nov. 23, 1852.. 

..Fairbanks... 


Whig. 

6th.... 

.. Michigan. 

.Feb. 12, 1853.. 

. .McCleland.. 


. Democrat. 

7th... 

.. Connecticut. 

.June 16, 1854.. 

.. Dutton. 

.. Whig.. 

...Whig. 

,I)em. and An. Neb. 

8th.... 

. .Indiana. 

.Feb. 8, 1855.. 

. .Wright. 

Dent, and An. Neb. 

9th... 

.. Delaware. 

.Feb. 27, 1855.. 

.. Causey. 


. American. 

10th.... 

. .Iowa. 

.Feb., 1855.. 

.. Grimes. 


.Whig and Rep. 

11th.... 

.. Nebraska. 

April 1. 1855.. 

.. Izard.. 


. Democrat. 

12th.... 

..New 7 York. 

.April 9, 1855.. 

.. Clark. 


. Whig. 

13th.... 

.. New Hampshire.. 

.July 14, 1855.. 

. .Metcalf. 


.Amer. and Rep. 

14th.... 

. .Illinois. 

.Feb. 16, 1855.. 

. ... 


.W-h. and An. Neb, 


(For notes concerning the above see Appendix .) 

ProliiMtory Movement Checked. 

The demand of the slaveholders for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise 
and the recognition of slaves as property in all the States of the Union caused 
a general alarm for the perpetuity of free institutions, and led to the political 
agitation which finally culminated in the war of the rebellion. In 1855 the 
effort for prohibitory legislation was general in all the States north of the 
Ohio River, and, doubtless, but for the untoward event of the slavery agita¬ 
tion, a few years more of effort would have witnessed such legislation, more or 
less perfect, dominant in all the free States. 

Special labor for prohibition ceased from 1856 to 1865. Nevertheless, dur¬ 
ing this period, and at the close of the war in 1865, legal suppression of the 
drink-traffic stands out as the clearly-manifest desire of the people, and in op¬ 
position to laws for regulation and license. 

Good Templars and Prohibition. 

In 1851 the Order of Good Templars was organized. It was a child of the 
Maine Law era, making prohibition of the liquor-traffic a fundamental prin¬ 
ciple and a chief object of its labors. Its principles were formulated in 1859 
as follows : 

“ 1. No license in any form, cr under any circumstances, for the sale of liquors to be used 
as a beverage. 

“2. The absolute prohibition of the manufacture, importation, and sale of intoxicating 
beverages for such purposes—prohibition by the will of the people, expressed in due form of law, 
with penalties deserved for a crime of such enormity. 

“ 3. The election of good, honest men to administer the laws.” 

SSeer llrewers against Temperance, 

The Beer-Brewers’ Association was formed and held its first Congress in 
1862, since which it has held annual sessions. In the introduction to the con¬ 
stitution of this association we find the following presentation of its political 
animus and objects : 

“2d. That the owners of breweries are separately unable to exercise a proper influence in 
the interest of the craft in the legislature and public administration. 

“ 3d. That it appears specially necessary for the brewing trade that its interests be vigor¬ 
ously and energetically prosecuted before the legislative and executive departments, as this 






























































4 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 




branch of business is of considerable political and financial importance, touching national inte¬ 
rests generally and exerting a direct as well as an indirect influence on political and social rela¬ 
tions.” 

A further motive for the organization of the association, they say, is “to 
foster and protect the trade from many threatening dangers,” and name the 
threatening dangers to be 

“ 1st. The progress of the prohibition cause ; thirteen States and Territories having enacted 
the Maine law; more than a million voters were pledged to its support. 

“ 2d. Taxation that would cripple the beer trade.” 

Beer in Politics, 

Political agitation before the legislative and executive departments is thus 
presented as a purpose to be “ vigorously and energetically prosecuted”; and 
when in their reports they claim, and we are informed, that for the last five 
years the Government of the United States has been represented by delegates 
in their annual meetings; and when the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 
Green S. Raum, a high officer of the Government, has twice been present in 
person, delivering addresses of congratulation and commendation, patriots and 
friends of temperance may justly be alarmed at the extent of the complicity of 
the Government and the power of the trade exercised over our legislation and 
execution of law. These reports show that officers of the Government and com¬ 
mittees of Congress are manifestly too ready to make such changes in the law 
and its construction at the desire of the “agitation committee” of the Beer- 
Brewers’ Association and in the interests of the trade. 

The following language used by Louis Schade, attorney of this association 
and editor of the Sentinel, an advocate cf the beer interest, published in Wash¬ 
ington, D. C., in an address to the Beer-Brewers’ Congress, will show the sel¬ 
fish and intensely political character of this organization: 

“ No, gentlemen, first personal and then political liberty! First beer, and 
then politics! ” 

The revelation of their principles, objects, and success is shown in their 
annual reports from 1862 to 1879.* 

As will be seen by the excerpts given, the Beer-Brewers’ Association is a po¬ 
litical as well as a trade organization. In the annual reports of its officers and 
^Agitation Committee,” and in their speeches and resolutions, “politics” 
occupy a large part of their deliberations. They organized to take “tempe¬ 
rance into politics,” and persistently have they done so, year after year, never 
hesitating to cross party lines in defence of “personal liberty” to make and 
sell beer without restraint of law. The unity of language, customs, and inte¬ 
rest is so strong a bond that it sways supreme, and hence it is understood 
that to secure the German vote is to secure an election. {For notes see 
Appendix.) 

Independent Political Action tor Temperance. 

It was the action and influence of the beer brewers and liquor leagues which 
aroused the temperance men and led them to declare in favor of independent 
political action. At the Brewers’ Congress, held in Chicago in 1867, the re- 

* For a very able review of, and excerpts from, Reports of the Beer-Brewers’ Congress, see 
a pamphlet published by “ The Franklin Printing House,” Philadelphia, entitled “ Do not take 
Temperance into Politics,” copies of which may be had of Dr. G. E. Palen, 1112 Girard Street, 
Philadelphia. 

/ 

' V . . .^ .. ( , s' 


The Prohibition Party. 


port of a committee “on the menacing attitude of temperance and Sabbata¬ 
rian fanatics toward the business ” contained the following resolution : 

“ Resolved , That we will use all means to stay the progress of this fanatical party, and to 
secure our individual rights as citizens, and that we will sustain no candidate of whatever party, 
in any election, who is any way disposed toward the total abstinence cause.” 

It was notably this enunciation of the brewers which in 1868 incited the 
Right Worthy Grand Lodge, the chief court of the Good Templars, to recom¬ 
mend “ the organization of a national political party which shall embrace in 
its platform of principles prohibition of the manufacture, importation, and 
sale of intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage.” In 1869 this same 
order, at its session in Oswego, N. Y., reiterated the foregoing-and further 

“ Resolved , That we esteem the present as an auspicious period in thehistory of our political 
affairs for the inauguration of this movement, and therefore recommend the calling'of aiSTational 
Convention for this purpose at an early day.” 

At the Sixth National Temperance Convention held at Cleveland, Ohio, 
July 29 and 30, 1868, the following recommendations and resolutions, antago¬ 
nistic of the action of the Brewers’ Congress, were adopted : 

“ Whereas, The liquor-dealers of our country have declared the traffic in intoxicating liquors 
to be a legitimate part of American commerce, and deny the right to prohibit or restrict the 
same, and through their leagues and Congress have repeatedly avowed their purpose to vote for 
no man in favor of total abstinence, and have constantly used their political power for the con¬ 
tinuance of their trade, and have in the past received the countenance of political .parties in sup¬ 
port of the positions thus assumed ; therefore, 

11 Resolved, That, in behalf of the public peace and welfare we accept the issue, and will meet 
them at the polls in resistance of these iniquitous demands. 

“ Resolved, That temperance, having its political as well as moral aspects and duties, de¬ 
mands the persistent use of the ballot for its promotion ; and the Convention urge the friends of 
the cause to refuse to vote for any candidate who denies the application of the just powers of the 
civil government to the suppression of the liquor-traffic, and exhort the friends of temperance, by 
every practical method in their several localities, to secure righteous political action for the ad¬ 
vancement of the cause.” 

Call for National Convention for Distinct Party Action. 

During the session of the Right Worthy Grand Lodge of Good Templars, 
held in Oswego, N. Y., May 25, 1869, a meeting of those favoring independent 
political action for the promotion of temperance was called. Jonathan H. 
Orne, of Marblehead, Mass,, was chosen chairman, and Julius A. Spencer, of 
Cleveland, Ohio, secretary. After discussion and deliberation it was resolved 
that a committee of five, consisting of John Russell, of Detroit, Mich., Prof, 
Daniel Wilkins, of Bloomington, Ill., Julius A. Spencer, of Cleveland, Ohio, 
John N. Stearns, of New York City, and-James Black, of Lancaster, Pa., 
should be appointed to prepare and issue a call for a National Prohibition 
Convention, for the purpose of organizing a National Prohibition Party, to be 
constituted and meet at such time and place as the committee might determine. 

The Committee prepared and issued the following call i 

To the Friends of Temperance, Law, and Order in the United States ; 

The moral, social, and political evils of intemperance and the non-enforcement of the liquor 
laws are. so fearful and prominent, and the causes thereof are so intrenched and protected by 
governmental authority and party interest, that the suppression of these evils calls upon the 
friends of temperance ; and the duties connected with home, religion, and public peace demand 
that old political ties and associations shall be sundered, and a distinct political party, with pro¬ 
hibition of the traffic in intoxicating drinks as the most prominent feature, should-be organized. 


6 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


The distinctive political issues that have for years past interested the American people are 
now comparatively unimportant, or fully settled, and in this aspect the time is auspicious for a 
decided and practical effort to overcome the dread power of the liquor-trade. 

The undersigned do therefore earnestly invite all friends of temperance and the enforcement 
of law, and favorable to distinct political action for the promotion of the same, to meet in gene¬ 
ral mass convention in the City of Chicago, on Wednesday, the 1st day of September, 1SG9, at 
11 o’clock a.m., for the purpose of organizing for distinct political action for temperance. 

All Churches, Sunday-schools, and Temperance Societies of all names, are requested to send 
delegates, and all persons favorable to this movement are invited to meet at the time and place 
above stated. 


E. M. Foust, Philadelphia, Pa. 

J. H. Orne, Marblehead, Mass. 

Joshua Wadsworth, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

S. W. Hodges, Boston, Mass. 

J. A. Spencer. Cleveland, Ohio. 

E. C. Bull, Philadelphia, Pa. 

H. D. Cushing, Boston, Mass. 

Eev. Peter Stryker, D.D., Philadelphia, Pa. 
Joshua Nye, Waterville, Me. 

Eev. Samuel McKean, Cambridge, N. Y. 

T. M. Yan Court, Chicago, Ill. 

Eev. J. G. D. Stearns, Clearwater, Minn. 
Wm. Hargraves, M.D., Heading, Pa. 

D. W. Gage, Ames, Iowa. 

Eev. J. C. Stoughton, Chicago, Ill. 

P. Mason, Somerville, N. J. 

Eev. Edwin Thompson, Boston, Mass. 

' Eev. Elnathan Davis, Fitchburg, Mass. 
Ebenezer Bowman, Taunton, Mass. 

B. E. Hale, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

J. F. Forbes, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Samuel Foljambe, Cleveland, Ohio. 

L. B. Silver, Salem, Ohio. 

Hon. O. P. Downs, Warsaw, Ind. 

G. N. Jones, Chicago, Ill. 

Dr. C. II. Merrick, Cleveland, Ohio. 

Jay Odell, Cleveland, Ohio. 

Eev. Wm. C. Hendrickson, Bristol, Pa. 
Enoch Passmore, Kennett Square, Pa. 


Neal Dow, Portland, Me. 

Eev. John Bussell, Detroit, Mich. 

James Black, Lancaster, Pa. 

Charles Jewett, Pomona, Tenn. 

Eev. James B. Dunn, Boston, Mass. 

Eev. Geo. Lansing Taylor, New York City. 
Hon. John O’Donnell, Lowville, N. Y. 

Eev. \Vm. M. Thayer, Franklin, Mass. 

Eev. N. E. Cobleigh, D.D., Athens, Tenn. 
Peterfleld Trent, M.D., Eichmond, Ya. 

J. N. Steams, New York City. 

Eev. Wm. Ilosmer, Auburn, N. Y. 

Eev. S. H. Platt, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

S. T. Montgomery, Indianapolis, Ind. 

Eev. G. H. Ball, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Geo. P. Burwell, Cleveland, Ohio. 

G. N. Abbey, Cleveland, Ohio. 

Luther S. Kauffman, Minersville, Pa. 

A. T. Proctor, Cleveland, Ohio. 

George S. Tambling, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio. 
II. Y. norton, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Eev. Moses Smith, Xenia, Ohio. 

Gen. J. S. Smith, Kingston, N. Y. 

T. P. Hunt, Wilkesbarre, Pa. 

D. E. Pershing, Warsaw, Ind. 

Geo. Gabel, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Wm. H. Fries, Clifton, Pa. 

S. J. Collin, Easton, Pa. 

And many others. 


Organization of the National Prohibition Reform Party. 

Pursuant to the above call, nearly five hundred delegates, from twenty dif¬ 
ferent States and the District of Columbia, assembled in mass convention in 
Farwell Hall, Chicago, on Wednesday, Sept. 1,1869, at eleven a.m. 

D. R. Pershing, of Indiana, called the meeting to order, read the call, and 
moved that Rev. John Russell, of Michigan, be temporary chairman. Mr. 
Russell, on being introduced, spoke as follows : 

“ Gentlemen of the Convention: I thank you for this sudden, brief, but certain honor. It 
is appropriate that my remarks should be in proportionate length to the short time I am expect¬ 
ed to preside over your deliberations. This convention, assembled under the call which has 
been read in your hearing, is but a spontaneous expression of a deep and rapidly spreading con¬ 
viction that the period has arrived for another forward movement in the great temperance re¬ 
form. People who fear God and regard the social and moral welfare of their fellow-men are, in 
all parts of our country, beginning to realize the imperious necessity for some stronger and more 
formal bond of union between those who favor legal prohibition of the liquor-traffic. While 
separated by other political party lines, and absorbed in other issues,, we are unable to act effi¬ 
ciently together for what we conscientiously believe to be the most important moral and political 
movement of the age. Hence, the object of our meeting is to organize a separate and independ- 



The Prohibition Party. 


7 


ent political party—[applause]—advocating among its most important measures prohibition of 
the importation, manufacture, and sale of all intoxicating drinks. [Applause.] ” 

Rev. Dr. Evarts, upon request of the Chairman, in prayer asked the bless¬ 
ing of God upon the labors of the Convention. 

J. A. Spencer, of Ohio, was chosen Temporary Secretary, and J. 0. Bray- 
man, of Illinois, Assistant Secretary. 

J. S. Hall, of Wisconsin; Luther S. Kauffman, of Pennsylvania; O. R. 
Harris, of District of Columbia; G. T. Stewart, of Ohio, and Dr. Wm. Ross, of 
Illinois, were appointed Committee on Enrollment. 

Rev. Wm. Goodell, of Connecticut, offered the following : 

“ Resolved , That this convention consist of delegates from other existing temperance organ¬ 
izations ; also all individuals who practise and advocate total abstinence from all intoxicating 
drinks, and who arc in favor of legislative prohibition of the manufacture, exportation, and 
sale of the same.'” 

Hon. Gerrit Smith, of New York, Dr. Wm. Ross, of Illinois, James 
Black, of Pennsylvania, Hon. II. D. Cushing, of Massachusetts, opposed; and 
Rev. John Lozier, of Indiana; Dr. Charles Jewett, of Tennessee; Hon. S. B. 
Ransom, of New Jersey, favored the resolution. 

Dr. Wm. Ross, of Illinois, moved to lay the resolution on the table. 

James Black, of Pennsylvania, offered the following as a substitute for that 
of Mr. Goodell: 


“ Resolved , That, in the judgment of this Convention, the time has fully come when duty en¬ 
joins upon us to organize a distinct political party for the promotion of temperance.” 

The chair ruled the resolution out of order, and the previous question hav¬ 
ing l^en called—the motion to lay on the table—was carried. 

Delegates to First National Conveistiosi. 

The Committee on enrollment reported the list of delegates as follows: 


Maine.— George Mitchell. 

Vermont.— Rev. J. M. Chase. 

Connecticut. —Rev. Wm. Goodell. 

Delaware. —Robert B. McDonnell. 

Tennessee. —Dr. Charles Jewett. 

Kansas. —Wm. M. Thomas. 

District op Columbia. —O. K. Harris. 

California. —E. Z. C. Judson. 

Iowa. —Frank Walker, Rev. W. H. Green. 

Missouri.— John Campbell, John T. Ustick, A. P. Ccorge, T. Parsons. 

New Jersey.— G. II. Hick, David Ripley, Rev. A. M. Palmer, Stephen B. Ransom, Pethuel 
Mason. 

Minnesota.— James Tompkins, Rev. A. D. Williams, Rev. W. Carver, Addie L. Ballou , M. 
D. Bartlett, D. B. Thurston. 

New York.— Hon. Gerrit Smith, W. M, Ireland, A. E. Bradley, G. R. Trempcr, Rev. George 
Young, W. W. A. Quinn, Rev. R. Cook, Orin T. Frost, Lott Frost. 

Pennsylvania —D. P. Hatch, Luther S. Kauffman, James Black, Hon. Robert M. Foust, 
Gen. B. F. Foust, Rev. A. J. Clarke. 

Massachusetts. —II. D. Cushing, Hon. Rodney French, Rev. E. A. Manning, J. II. Roberts, 
Rev. A. P. Burgess, Rev. O. T. Walker, B. C. nazleton, J. M. Ford, A. B. Smart, Hon. Rich¬ 
mond Kingman, Rev. S. Austin. 

Ohio.— L. B. Silver, L. Higby, G. T. Stewart, Alfred French, Professor Palmer, J. A. Spen¬ 
cer. Dr. L. P. narris, C. F. Dunbar, G. N. Abbey, Dr. C. n. Merrick, G. S. Tumbling, Jr., John 
Wadsworth, Thomas Edmondson, Jay Odell. 

Indiana.— Rev. D. Hall, J. B. Fallow, Rev. James Hill, A. Arrison, S. T. Montgomery, D. 
R. Pershing, P. Slater, J. S. Knight, W. W. Jackson, T. II. Stewart, G. N. Davidson, Amanda M. 
Way, Rev. J. H. Lozier, Rev. J. W. Montfort, Ira J. Chase, J. S. Garrigues. 




8 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


Wisconsin.— G. L. Whitney, — Martin, Mrs. W. L. Whitney, J. M. Way, C. D. Pillsbury, E. 

B. French, J. P. Fish, L. C. Keeler, R. A. Loveland, Joseph Plackett, Dr. S. W. Wilson, Ste¬ 
phen Crosby, Rev. C. J. Coles, M. Seller, Rev. Delos Love, Rev. II. S. White, R. Sherwin, Rev. 
H. C. Tilton. 

Michigan.— Prof. W. II. Shelley, L. R. Atwater, T. McDaniels, N. R. Fassett, D. Geo. L. 
Miner, Rev. J. B. Parmelee, M. A. Dunham, J. II. Hartwell, E. D. Lamoyne, John S. Alcott, 
Rev. William Fuller, F. F. C. Dodd, Joseph Bliss, Rev. John Russell, J. B. Bloss, E. C. Man¬ 
chester, J. Gridley, C. B. Wood, John Evans, G. S. Femcrook, F. N. Newman, T. W. Case, 
Harry Hopkins, Wm. G. Brown, David Landon, C. E. McGee, Rev. Wr. Welton, Mr. Kemp, J. 
H. Wallace, Rev. T. T. George, J. Bennett, L. G. Taylor, Rev. E. Curtiss, Joseph Watkins, J. 
E. Hitchcock, App. M. Smith, George B. Jocelyn, D.D., Dr. E. Burk, Dr. Wm. J. Calvert, S. 
J. Wing. 

Illinois. —T. R. May, C. W. Phillips, T. D. Bailey, John F.'Donovan, W. L. Bridell, G. W. 
Pittenger, R. Graham, E. Clark, C. P. Magoon, Dr. E. Denman, R. Ladell, C. L. Vezy, J. Eddy, 
E. W. Clark, Rev. T. S. Olmstead, David Jewell, G. Thompson, J. P. Hall, A. McGregor, E- 
Crispin, J. Walker, W. F. Dodge, Rev. Hope Brown, Rev. Moses Smith, B. F. Demerest, W. 
W. Foreman, J. Elliott, Geo. L. Tambling, II. L. Crosby, II. J. Rice, C. A. Vannetta, Henry W. 
Clark, C. Greeley, S. M. Kennedy, George N. Ross, L. F. Waldo, John Allis, J. R. Van Dorn, 
Frederick Felker, Wm. H. Richly, Giles Furneare, Mrs. M. E. Mills, Mrs. M. A Hunt, Miss T. 
A. Hall, — G. N. Jones, Mrs. M. H. Jones, E. B. Shirman, Rev. A. C. Price, Rev. — Lyon, J. 
T. Wheeler, W. F. Way, Luman Hubbard, Ira Blockman, Rev. W. B. Jones, Rev. A. Wiley, 
W. F. Parsons, M. H. Levy, J. P. Wetz, Barker Morse, J. Dixon, R. E. Hoyt, Harold A. Stall- 
wood, Edward Rowayne, I. D. Haines, Rev. D. W. English, Mary E. Huse, J. D. Croissant, 
Lydia C. Lamont, S. B. Bathurst, G. S. Emerson, Charles Curtis, Rev. B. L. McCord, J. A. 
Angier, J. T. Holbrooke, J. A. Gordon, Mrs. B. F. Dudley, Mrs. L. M. Rich, Mrs. C. B. nolmes, 

C. B. nolmes, F. D. Dalton, J. W. Nicholson, J. M. Price, D. Jewell, Wm, W. Sharp, Geo. G. 
Seaton, Jos. L. Drake, Duncan McKella, Harry Cassil, Jas. G. Johnson, Mrs. Lucy A. Seaton, 
Chas. E. Parsons, Chas. O. Wentz, Justin J. Durnan, D. W. Dunviddie, Henry Lincoln, Dr. A. 
M. Knapp, T. W. Stockwell, B. J. Bartlett, D. P. Taylor, J. D. Haines, P. Pease, Rev. W. Al- 
lington, G. N. Jones, B. W. Goodhue, C. II. Farr, Robert Allyn, J. O. Brayman, — Culver, — 
Bronson, — McClain, Mrs. Wise, Mrs. Clark, Mrs. Neadhoper, Mrs. Barton, Mrs. Emma Duft, 
Mrs. Kennedy, T. M. Vancourt, W. S. S. Ross, Mrs. Mattie Patterson, Hon. John Seboski,Levi 
Lewis, L. A. White, W. II. Earle, E. D. Wheaton, A. S. Kenyon, II. B. Gifford, W. J. Raw¬ 
lins, Rev. W. B. Christopher, J. Richmond, norace F. Knapp, Wm. Brown, L. M. West, Rev. 
S. M. Penfield, James Lamont, Rev. Jas. F. Gates, Rev. M. Holmes, George Reeves, E. C. Dunn, 
J. M. Buel, Geo. W. Reeves, S. Lane, II. R. Wells, John F. Squier, Rev. II. Brown, J. J. 
Church, J. B. Ireton, C. P. West, J. M. Phillips, S. Dorr, F. W. Winship, Rev. J. S. Barlow, 
W. II. Barnes, W. Loucks, T. Moulding, C. Barrett, A. G. Warner, E. D. Lemoin, D. Ivech, J. 
II. Bartlett, Rev. W. H. Brewster, H. W. Horton, Mrs. E. DeGeer, J. B. Colby, Rev. F. S. 
Bascom, E. E. Rutledge, J. S. Foster, Rev. A. J. Jones, Rev. R. Morry, J. P. Bassett, Dr. E. 
Osborn, W. Wood, Dr. Wm. King, C. Rohrbaugli, M. A. Bartlett, Theodore Bartlett, John N. 
Patton, Samuel Dorr, Solomon Lcrue, A. A. Creary, Rev. David Teed, R. M. Buckney, J. G. 
Brown, J. Mair, E. K. Green, W. N. McElroy, Rev. Mr. Truesdale, J. K. Kilburn, W. B. Sher¬ 
wood, Rev. W. E. Holyoke, n. M. Cobb, J. B. Roberts, D. Wilkins, Wm. Hotchkiss, Rev. Jos. 

E. Ray, G. R. Ward, S. Reese, W. A. Crary, W. D. Babbitt, A. E. Gammon, Ann O. Reed, T. 

F. Reed, Alice M. Louckes, Angeline Gray, Isaac Preston, S. W. Randall, Christian Olson, Rev. 
A. J. Jones, W. A. Fisher, Charles F. Russell, Joseph N. Balton, M. O. Bartlett, M. II. Scavey, 
Mrs. A. T. Hogan, A. Lapp, B. F. Demarest, Rev. F. II. Brown, M. H. Pease, I. Augustine, T. 
A. McDonald, Charles Snow, W. A. P. Blanchard, Mrs. W. A. P. Blanchard, n. Meyrick, Rev. 
S. G. Wright, Justina A. Pengree, Mary E. Russell, J. C. Hall, W. B. Alexander, Rev. Robert 
M. Hatfield, Asahel Wood, A. L. Steal, Rev. II. C. Abernethy, Rev. J. C. Stoughton, Isaac 
Willett, Rev. C. P. West, Col. n. Pease, A. C. Hartsock, Dr. Wm. Ross, Rev. Raymond Lewis, 
R. N. Schols, R. M. Hunt, E. Wormley, J. S. Maxwall, D. Halliday, Wm. Coffin, Geo. W. Fow¬ 
ler, A. N. Merrill, J. Wheeler, W. P. Everett, A. H. Benson, G. C. Sampson, Mrs. A. B. Ben¬ 
son, Mrs. Mary Blanchard, Miss Lizzie Sucutzell, Rufus Gray, A. J. Wormley, D. W. C. Smith. 
Willard Milles, R. W. Mason, J. F. Reed, Theodore Staley, Miss Fannie Woodbury, Rev. Wm. 
McElroy, Mathew Henry Pogson, W. D. Whaples, Henry Barrett, W. S. G. Wing, H. J. Ham¬ 
mond, Dr. norace Knapp, Dr. T. F. C. Dodd, S. B. Single, Rev. Lewis Raymond, Wm. Baily, 
Wm. F. Gohcen, C. C. Straun, Ansell Gammon, Thomas Wing, Wm. Perry, n. II. Norton, 
Enos Thatcher, Dr. P. Johnson, F. F. Post, Isaiah Blakesley, John A. Hewitt, I. J. Gosper, M. 


The Prohibition Party . 


9 


A. Lewis, W. S. Balch, H. H. May, E. R. Bowen, J. W. Burroughs, E. C. Bartlett, Rev. S. W. 
Leonard, J. W. Starr. 

The Supreme Council of the Knights Templars of Temperance sent the 
following delegates: 

Harry Gassil, Illinois; G. Elliot, Indiana; Geo. S. Tumbling, Ohio. 

The Supreme Council of Templars of Honor and Temperance sent the fol¬ 
lowing persons as delegates: 


J. Wadsworth, Ohio; Rev. G. B. Jocelyn, Michigan; J. X. Steams, New York; Israel Perry, 
New Jersey ; R. C. Bull, Norval Holmes, Pennsylvania ; H. Knapp, Michigan ; A. E. Grow, 
Illinois. 

Committee oil Permanent Organization. 

Rev. Dr. Geo. B. Jocelyn, of Michigan, moved the appointment of a Com¬ 
mittee on Permanent Organization, to consist of one delegate from each State. 
The following named gentlemen were appointed : 


Illinois—Rev. Dr. Bascom. 
Michigan—Rev. Dr. Jocelyn. 
Massachusetts—J. II. Roberts. 
Indiana—Dr. G. N. Davidson. 
Ohio—J. Odell. 

Wisconsin— M. Sellars. 

District of Columbia—O. K. Haines. 
Missouri—John Campbell. 
Minnesota—Rev. Mr. Carver. 


Pennsylvania—Hon. R. M. Foust. 
New Jersey—George II. Hick. 
New York—John N. Stearns. 
Iowa—Rev. Yv r . II. Green. 
Connecticut—Rev. Wm. Goodell. 
Vermont—J. H. Chase. 
Tennessee—Rev. Dr. Jewett. 
California—E. Z. C. Judson. 


Mon. (lerritt Smith’s Address. 

In response to an invitation by the Convention, Hon. Gerrit Smith, of 
New 7 York, addressed the Convention as follows : 

What do you want to hear from me ? What kind of a speech do you expect ? I will 
admit that you want me to say what, in my judgment, should be the work or object of the 
political party which we are met here to organize, for I cannot doubt that we shall organize one, 
I cannot believe for a moment we shall so far fail to respond to the call which has brought us 
together as to fail to organize an independent party. Let me say that this will be one of the 
most important parties ever organized. Important, in the first place, because it will be a 
national party ; in the second place, because of the vast magnitude of its object. Again, it 
will be very important because at every step, all over the land, this party will meet with a 
most determined, and, to a large extent, the most malignant resistance. It will have such an 
enemy to encounter in the rum-power as seldom has a party been called upon to encounter. 
Then, if I am right in my apprehension of the importance of this party, of what infinite mo¬ 
ment it is that we lay a sure foundation. A political party is always organized to make a de¬ 
mand upon the Government. What is this demand to be ? Shall it be that our Government 
shall espouse the cause of temperance ? I trust not. Our Government has not to espouse any 
moral reform whatever; no religious enterprise whatever. These do not pertain legitimately 
to the province of civil government. What, now, will this party demand at the hands of the 
Government ? It shall demand one thing, and one thing only, and then the party will endure 
and triumph. What is that one thing ? That the Government shall be faithful in the dis¬ 
charge of its great duty, to protect person and property. [Applause.] Limit the object of 
this party to that, and it will triumph as surely as the sun shall rise to-morrow. [Ap¬ 
plause.] 

I have been written to repeatedly regarding what, in my judgment, should be the name of 
the party. I have but one name to give it—a name expressive of its purpose—significant of 
our undertaking. What is it ? The anti-dram-selling party—[applause]—or, if you prefer, and 
I prefer it, the anti-dram-shop party; or, if you prefer it, the no-dram selling party or no-dram¬ 
shop party. Then it will be known what we mean. And then what w ill be the name of our 
opponents ? A suitable and infamous name—the dram-shop party. [Applause and laughter.] 


10 Brief History of Prohibition and of 

In the name of all wisdom pat that name upon your opponents, both in the Republican and 
Democratic parties. 

Am I not right in saying that it is the province of civil government to protect person and 
property ? It is manifestly its duty to suppress the dram-shop ; for I affirm that all other 
sources of peril to person and property put together do not equal by any means the dram¬ 
shop. 

What is a dram-shop ? Let us have a just interpretation of it. It is a manufactory not 
only of paupers but of incendiaries, madmen, and murderers. Is such an institution, if I may 
dignify the abominable thing by that respectable name, compatible with the public safety? 
No, I deny that civil government is faithful to its great province whilst it suffers the dram¬ 
shop to be in existence, so long as it establishes and permits it. May I go further ? The civil 
government that allows this enemy to the safety of person and property is unworthy of the 
name of civil government. 

I have been asked very often of late whether we must not couple with this great central 
idea of our party, the protection of person and property, especially from the pre-eminent peril 
of the dram-shop—whether we must not couple with it some other ideas. We shall incur the 
reproach, it is said, of being a one-idea party. There is the greatest delusion on this subject 
prevailing all over the land that you can posibly imagine. We ask that this party shall be 
expressly committed to the one great idea of protecting person and property at the hands of 
the Government, and especially protecting them from the dram-shop. Are we to be reproach¬ 
ed as a one-idea party ? Tell me, you who can, what one idea the Republican party is com¬ 
mitted to—what one idea the Democratic party is committed to? [Laughter.] There is not a 
single idea, not a single principle, on which all the members of either of these parties are 
agreed—not one. [Applause. A voice, 11 Spoils.”] That is a capital answer to the question. 
Had I thought of it, I might have modified my remarks. 

It has been proposed by many that we adopt the English scheme of local options, as it is 
called, the government allowing one town to traffic in the accursed poison and disallowing an¬ 
other town to do so. Our English brethren have adopted this scheme, and we hold them in high 
honor, but they have failed to know the great sacred mission of civil government. In this great 
democratic land we have talked so much about the duty of the Government to act in consonance 
with the people that we have run democracy under the ground. The people, I admit, have the 
exclusive right to choose their form of government. It may be a pure democracy, it may 
be a republican form of government, it may be a constitutional monarchy. But when they 
have done that what remains ? Is the ruler absolutely responsible to the people ? Is he not 
supremely amenable to his God ? You cannot improve upon the words of Paul, “ The ruler is 
the minister of God.” He is to act, and act out the principles of God. Is it God’s principle 
that civil government, which is to represent him in this exceedingly important department of 
life—is it God’s principle that the ruler should suffer this traffic to be carried on in one town 
and not in another ? Try it. Suppose it were proposed that Government shall permit, accord¬ 
ing to the tastes of the people, a traffic in this town and not in that, the getting of goods in 
this town and not in that. You would be horrified at the proposition, if you did not laugh at 
it. Why is it that some of our good, intelligent, and enlightened temperance men advocate this 
local-option proposition? There is but one answer, and that is that the people have not been 
educated to regard dram-selling as a crime. You would never think for a moment of leaving it 
to the option of towns and localities to practise a crime, to do as they please. Never I What 
we want to do is to educate the people to regard the liquor-traffic as a crime. Government, 
after all, is the mightiest educator of the people—more so than the school, we may say even 
than the church. We must inspire the Government with a sense of sacredness of its mission, 
of its responsibility to high heaven. Of course I am not now referring to little petty matters, 
that the Government can appropriately leave to the peop'e—where the railroads and canals 
shall go and where school-houses and churches shall be built. But this is a doctrine in the 
cause of fundamental morality. Let the Government decide in the light of the divine will, and 
in that light only. [Applause.] 

Suppose the Government should learn that one town wanted this traffic and another town 
did not want it, what should the Government do? Amidst all the din and the discord of these 
human utterances let the Government listen to the voice of God, and permit no crime to be 
practised anywhere within its jurisdiction. Do you doubt, my dear brother and dear sister, 
for a moment that dram-selling is not to be excluded with crime ? In the light of its effects, 
compared with the effects of stealing, of getting goods under false pretences, of forgery, of 


The Prohibition Party. 


11 


perjury, these crimes sink into mere peccadilloes. My friend, what do you care about a thief 
stealing all the money from the pocket of your son in comparison with your deep moaning over 
his falling into the hands of the dram-seller ? Has not the time come for us to view these 
things rightly ? We are not to be deceived by names any longer. 

At the close of Mr. Smith’s remarks the Committee on Permanent Organiza¬ 
tion made the following report, which was unanimously adopted : 

President: lion. James Black, of Pennsylvania. Vice-Presidents : Dr.F.B. Ives, Illinois ; 
John Evans, Michigan ; Hon. Rodney French, Massachusetts ; S. T. Montgomery, Indiana ; 
Thomas Edmondson, Ohio; Rev. C. S. Pillsbury, Wisconsin ; O. K. Harris, District of Co¬ 
lumbia ; John F. Ustick, Missouri; M. B. Bartlett, Minnesota ; Hon. R, M. Foust, Pennsyl¬ 
vania ; Rev. A. M. Palmer, New Jersey ; William M. Ireland, New York ; Rev. W. H. Green, 
Iowa ; Rev. William Goodell, Connecticut; Rev. J. K. Chase, Vermont; Dr. Charles Jewett, 
Tennessee ; E. Z. C. Judson, California. Secretaries : J. A. Spencer, Ohio; John N. Steams, 
New York ; J. O. Brayman, Illinois ; George H. Hick, Pennsylvania. Treasurer : Hon. Ger 
rit Smith. 

Mr. Black, the President-elect of the Convention, was then introduced by 
the temporary chairman, and spoke as follows : 

I approach the duties of my position with timidity, knowing my inexperience and inca¬ 
pacity. 

I shall rely upon the fact, or the belief, that the members of this convention have assembled 
with a single eye, a single purpose to advance the cause of temperance, and glorify God there¬ 
by ; that there is no personal or selfish motive that actuates or influences this body. I trust 
to have the aid of the experience and wisdom of this body in conducting its deliberations. 

It is a possible thing that we are standing at a historic point in the history of tempe¬ 
rance. I know not exactly what may be the fact, but in all probability our gathering here to¬ 
day will be a point in future history that shall be referred to with commendation. 

Permit me for a moment or two to engage your attention as to the facts of our reform. It 
may be said that the temperance reform had its origin in the forming of the Temperance Re¬ 
form Society in Boston in 1826. Auxiliary societies were then established upon an ardent- 
spirit pledge, sometimes called the “ short pledge.” It continued its operations for some time; 
but it was very soon observed that the ardent-spirit pledge was not sufficient to save men, that 
men redeemed under that pledge became drunkards again upon beverages not excluded. 
Hence came up the logical question of total abstinence, and a desire was manifested to exclude 
all forms of alcoholic substances from use as a beverage. In 1833 the first National Tempe¬ 
rance Convention assembled in the city of Philadelphia. It was an initial convention. Men 
came in large numbers from places far distant, and at a very great sacrifice of time and 
money. After long debate it was concluded that the traffic in alcoholic drinks was an immoral 
traffic. The point has not been doubted from that day to this. It seemed that this question 
was determined. The other, of extending the pledge, was also in controversy, and led to the 
call of the second convention in 1836 at Saratoga. When assembled the convention was not 
prepared to affirm total abstinence as being a proper principle, but a debate of two days and 
their consciences led to its adoption almost unanimously. In 1841 the convention again as¬ 
sembled in Saratoga to establish the immorality of the manufacture, traffic in, or sale of ar¬ 
dent spirits, which resulted in the license laws. 

In 1851, at the convention that then assembled, we adopted the practical prohibition, or 
u Maine” law. 

Allow me to call your attention for a moment to the practice of total abstinence and the 
license laws. The rights of prohibition, I will say, are not now doubted anywhere by any man 
or woman claiming recognition in the temperance ranks. [Applause.] 

In 186? there was a long interregnum between the beginning and the close of the war, 
when there was a dearth in the cause of temperance. The fifth national convention was 
called, and the application of these two principles of total abstinence and prohibition was 
made—first, to alcoholic beverages used in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ; second, the 
denial of alcoholic liquors as a beverage—an extension of a new application of these princi¬ 
ples. 

In 1868 the sixth national convention assembled at Cleveland. That convention affirmed 
the right and the duty of temperance men to use the ballot persistently for temperance—an 
advance, you will notice. It was very justly said that the man in favor of total abstinence and 
prohibition, who gave his money and time and effort for one day in the year, and went 
and voted for men who were in opposition to these views, and who, if elected, would 


12 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


\ 


continue the traffic, was an accused and damned man—a great and glorious advance. I 
trust that this convention is prepared to take a step still in advance. [Applause.] 

I believe that good and earnest people embraced in the temperance ranks are expecting 
that we shall faithfully, honestly, and boldly assume the logical result of these positions, and 
declare that we will disunite ourselves from those who have been drags upon us, and form a 
temperance party, using the ballot now and henceforth. [Loud applause.] 


To the Christian minister, to the moralist, to the philanthropist, no consideration touching 
the welfare of the human race, touching the welfare of his fellow-citizens, is equal to the 
dread array of authentic statistics ; and yet the same picture, the same proportions exist 
in this city of Chicago to-day—exist in all the villages and towns of our land, in proportion to 
its churches and schools and dram-shops. It is fearful. 

The magnitude of the figures embraced in this contest with rum is so great that the human 
mind fail3 to receive them and properly act upon them. 

But I call upon you, Christian friends, and ask you to call upon your neighbors, to insist 
that the dram-shop, as the school of vice, shall be closed, and the church and the school-house, 
as the school of virtue, shall remain open. [Applause.] 

What political party to-day proposes, even in a remote view, to recognize and support the 
schools of virtue against the schools of vice ? [Voice : “ None but the new party.”] I trust 
that this party may soon become as the sands of the sea. [Cheers.] Then shall we cure the 
evil. I see no party that is taking up this warfare ; hence I am in Chicago to-day to help form 
this party of liberty and civilization. [Cheers.] And I hope that we shall be able to over¬ 
throw the influence and destroy this evil which is devastating the land. 

I am fully aware that we have got to pass through the Red Sea of trouble. I am fully 
aware that we shall have to make a long and tedious journey to the haven of rest. I believe 
that those who shall see victory crown our efforts and success reward our endeavors will 
have to journey long and patiently. But the end will come, and the victory will be ours, and 
those who go with us shall enter in and enjoy, and believe that the blessings of God shall be 
upon those who are faithful, and who shall stand up for the truth and the right in this hour. 

The holy Bible—that shall be our platform. Its truths are immutable ; its promises are 
upon those truths ; and those truths are in our hearts, and we propose to carry them into our 
daily life. 

It is the duty of every true-hearted man, it is the duty of every true-hearted patriot 
who liveth not for himself, but liveth for the benefit of his fellows and for the honor and glory 
of God, to see this cause triumph. [Cheers.] 


Committee on Platform and. Address. 

The Committee on Platform and Resolutions was named as follows, each 
State delegation naming its own member: 


Illinois—Rev. J. C. Stoughton. 
Michigan—Rev. John Russell. 
Massachusetts—Henry D. Cushing. 
Indiana—D. R. Pershing. 

Ohio—L. B. Haines. 

Wisconsin—Dr. S. W. Wilson. 

District of Columbia—O. K. Harris. 
Missouri—Timothy Parsons. 

Minnesota 


Pennsylvania—Hon. Robt. M. Foust. 
New Jersey—S. B. Ransom. 

New York—Hon. Gerrit Smith. 

Iowa—Frank Walker. 

Connecticut—Rev. Wm. Goodell. 
Vermont—Rev. J. II. Chase. 
Tennessee—Rev. Chas. Jewett. 
California—E. Z. C. Judson. 

M. D. Bartlett. 


The Committee on Business appointed by the chair were: 

Messrs. Sellers, Wisconsin: P. Mason, New Jersey; G. A. Abbe, Ohio; Rev. J. H. Chase, 
Vermont; W. M. Ireland, New York. 

On motion, the Committee on Resolutions were instructed that it was part of 
their duty to prepare an “ Address to the People of the Nation.” 

Resolutions. 

Rev. J. C. Stoughton, from Committee on Platform, reported the following: 

Whereas, Protection and allegiance are reciprocal duties, and every citizen who yields obe¬ 
dience to the just commands of his Government is entitled to the full, free, and perfect pro- 


t 


The Prohibition Party. 


13 


tection of that Government in the enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private 
property; and. 

Whereas, The traffic in intoxicating drinks greatly impairs the personal security and per¬ 
sonal liberty of a large mass of citizens, and renders private property insecure; and, 

Whereas , The existing parties are hopelessly unwilling to adopt an adequate policy on this 
question, therefore we, in National Convention assembled, as citizens of this free Republic, 
sharing in the duties and responsibilities of its Government, in discharge of a solemn duty we 
owe to our country and our race, unite in the following declaration of principles: 

1. That while we acknowledge the pure patriotism and profound statesmanship of those pa¬ 
triots w T ho laid the foundations of this Government, securing at once the rights of the States, 
severally and their inseparable union by the Federal Constitution, we would not merely gar¬ 
nish the sepulchres of our republican fathers, but we do hereby renew our solemn pledges of 
fealty to the imperishable principles of civil and religious liberty embodied in the Declaration 
of American Independence and our Federal Constitution. 

2. That the traffic in intoxicating beverages is a dishonor to Christian civilization, inimical 
to the best interests of society, a political wrong of unequalled enormity, subversive of the or¬ 
dinary objects of government, not capable of being regulated or restrained by any system of 
license whatever; but imperatively demanding for its suppression effective legal prohibitions 
both by State and national legislature. 

3. That in view of this, and inasmuch as the existing political parties either oppose or ig¬ 
nore this great and paramount question, and absolutely refuse to do anything toward the sup¬ 
pression of the rum-traffic, which is robbing the nation of its brightest intellects, destroying 
internal prosperity, and rapidly undermining its very foundations, we are driven by an imper¬ 
ative sense of duty to sever our connection with these political parties, and organize ourselves 
into a National Prohibition Party, having for its primary object the entire suppression of the 
traffic in intoxicating drinks. 

4. That while we adopt the name of the National Prohibition Party, as expressive of our 
primary object, and while we denounce all repudiation of the public debt, and pledge fidelity 
to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution, we deem 
it expedient at present to give prominence to other political issues. 

5. That while we recognize the good providence of Almighty God in supervising the inter¬ 
ests of this nation from its establishment to the present time, we would not in organizing our 
party for the legal prohibition of the liquor-traffic forget that our reliance for ultimate success 
must be upon the same omnipotent arm. 

0. That a central executive committee, of one from each State and Territory and the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia, be appointed by the chair, whose duty it shall be to take such action as, in 
their judgment, will best promote the interests of the party. 

Discussion on Kcsolutions. 

On reading the third resolution a warm discussion prevailed: 

Rev. John Lozier, of Indiana, said : I oppose the resolution because it is not true that 
existing political parties have refused to take cognizance of temperance. 

Mr. Montgomery, of Indiana, said ; Indiana is ready fora new party, and is kept back by 
men who have political axes to grind. 

Mr. Knapp, of Chicago, rebuked the Tribune and favored the organization of a new party. 

Dr, Jewett, of Tennessee, said the case of Massachusetts would deny the assertion that the 
Republican party had done nothing for prohibition. The people of that State had petitioned 
for a prohibitory law and the Legislature gave it. • 

Mr. Russell: What law do you refer to ? 

Dr. Jewett: I refer to the law passed in 1852. 

A voice : That was before the Republican party was born. 

Dr, Jewett : I was in error then ; it was the Whig party. 

Dr Jewett continued: Every Democratic newspaper in the State was opposed to prohibi¬ 
tory laws, and bad persistently fought them ever since they were instituted. In every State 
where the Legislature has passed a prohibitory law, the Democracy have immediately, at the 
very next convention, put a clause of anti-prohibition in their platform. Have you ever 
beard of a temperance Democrat protesting against that in any of their conventions? He 
closed the argument with an appeal to Republicans, telling them that if the new party 
was formed it would put the Democracy in power. 

Mr. Russell, of Michigan, then took the platform. He thought his excellent friend, Dr. 
Jewett, was mistaken. First, however, a few primary thoughts, Temperance is both a moral 


14 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


and political reform. With the moral part of it we are not here to deal. We are to deal with 
it as a political question. It is as directly a political question as hanking, or any other mea¬ 
sure of the government. Political parties are for the accomplishment of political purposes; 
and great political measures can only succeed through the agency of the party who espouses 
them. That has been the history of all political movements. Every government like ours is 
governed by party. The dominant party represents the people. Consequently we can never 
succeed with prohibition until some party endorses it, and that party becomes the successful 
one. Now, I assume, in opposition to my good friend, Dr. Jewett, that neither of the existing 
parties has ever endorsed this issue raised by the temperance movement. 

Dr. Jewett remarked that the Maine Republican party had at their last election. 

Mr. Russell replied that it had, and nominated a whiskey man for governor. This action 
was so unsatisfactory to the temperance men that they called a convention immediately and 
nominated an independent ticket. [Applause.] The Massachusetts prohibitory law was 
adopted in 1832, four years before the Republican party was organized as a national party. 
It was adopted in Connecticut the following year. He called upon any gentleman to name a 
State where the Republican party inaugurated a measure of prohibition. LA voice, “ Vermont in 
1852.”] The Republican party was not in existence then. Hedid notdesire to charge dereliction 
of duty or corruption upon the Republican party. He had no confidence in any party that had 
ever existedfor the advancement of the temperance reform. In 1853 the Legislature of Michigan 
enacted and presented to the people the first prohibitory law. The Republican party had no exist¬ 
ence at that time. The Democratic party was largely in the majority. There was a difficulty be¬ 
tween the constitution and the Supreme Court, and the law was not operative. Two years later 
the Republican party was in existence and enacted the present law. Any party would have 
enacted it, because the people demanded it. Parties were known by the doctrines they put 
in their platforms, their press and their representative men. The temperance party was 
making a platform, and the people wanted to know what the opinions of the convention 
were upon the different questions. The Republican party had a majority in the country, but 
it was sadly wanting in representative men in favor of prohibition. The sentiments of this 
party were known through its press. He could not see any difference in the sentiments of the 
press of the two parties on the prohibitory law. 

Mr. French, of Massachusetts, said the Republican party, as a party, had done nothing for 
temperance, though Republicans individually had. The Republican papers of Massachusetts 
with but two or three exceptions, were opposed to prohibition. Russia had done more than 
Massachusetts for prohibition, and even the Micmac Indians had deposed their chief 
for drunkenness, and elected a temperance man. Let the new party be formed, and his State 
would fall in line. 

Mrs. Ballou, of Minnesota, then addressed the Convention, and was heart and soul in favor 
of the new party. s • 

Mr. Balch, of Illinois, addressed the Convention, and moved that the resolution be 
amended by naming the new party “ The National Temperance Party,” instead of “ The Anti- 
Dram-shop Party,” as had just been proposed. The resolution was carried, but afterward, on 
motion of Mr. Russell, of Michigan,the name was permanently changed to “ The National Pro¬ 
hibition Party.” 

Address to t5ie People. 

The following “ Address to the People of the United States ” was presented 
by the Hon. Gerrit Smith, of New York: 

Slavery is gone, but drunkenness stays. There are two millions of drunkards in our land. 
Counting their wives and children, and parents, and brothers and sisters, there are at least 5,000,- 
000 of our people involved in the miseries of drunkenness. One drun kard in a family is enough 
to make the whole family miserable. Our involuntary slaves are set free, but our millions of vol¬ 
untary slaves still clang their chains. The lot of the literal slave, of him whom others have 
enslaved, is indeed a hard one; nevertheless it is a paradise compared with the lot of him who 
has enslaved himself—especially of him who has enslaved himself to alcohol. The noblest 
of souls may dwell beneath chains which others have imposed, but self-imposed chains strike 
debasement through and through the soul. Happy, too, may the literal siave be if 
only he has kept his inner man—his essential seif—unconquered; but no outward ad¬ 
vantages can bring happiness to the victim of alcohol—to him who has killed his own soul. 
Then, too, the literal slave does harm to none, whilst the self-made slave of whom we speak is 
a curse to his kindred, a burden upon all, and in no small share of the cases a terror to ail. 

What can we do towards saving our million of drunkards ? Just what we have been doing. 


The Prohibition Party. 


15 


I 

We are to continue the power of persuasion with them, and the power of prayer to God for 
them. And what can we do to prevent the recruiting of the ever rapidly-thinning ranks of 
drunkenness? None of the recruits come from those who abstain from intoxicating drinks. 
The “ temperate drinkers ” furnish all. Our work, therefore, at this point, is to warn and be¬ 
seech the rising youth to take not the first step in the pathway, the second in which sinks the 
unwary and ill-fated traveller in drunkenness. It is, in other words, to warn and beseech 
them to “ Touch not, taste not, handle not” the drinks which transmute more than one-tenth 
of the “ temperate drinkers” into drunkards. It is, we might add, to persuade them—yes, and 
the old as well as the young—that there is no security from drunkenness but total abstinence 
from all intoxicating drinks. Total abstainers from intoxicating drinks ! you, and you only, 
are safe from this greatest calamity, this most sweeping ruin. “A thousand shall fall at thy 
side and ten thousand at thy right hand, but it shall not come nigh thee.” God be praised 
that this priceless safety is obtained by means so simple; and that the application of these 
means is attended with pleasure instead of pain, with comfort instead of discomfort. 

We proceed to ask whether Government may be called upon to advance the cause of tempe¬ 
rance. Whilst many say that it may, many say that it may not, and there is no need in this 
case of calling upon it to exercise doubtful, or even any reasonably doubtful, powers. We 
have no occasion to question the conclusion of those who hold that Government has not the 
right to espouse the temperance reform or any other reform. For two sufficient reasons, nev¬ 
ertheless, we call upon the Government to suppress the dram-shop. 

First. The province of Government being to protect person and property, it is clearly its duty 
to forbid the existence of the dram-shop. That abomination is the great peril to person and 
property ; for it is the great manufactory, not of paupers only, but also of incendiaries, mad¬ 
men, and murderers. Not a few of its frequenters go forth from it to burn or kill. Govern¬ 
ment is surely very false to its trust, and very delinquent in its duty, in licensing or permitting 
the dram-shop. By this falseness and delinquency it proves itself unworthy to be the consti¬ 
tuted protector of the persons and property of its subjects—unworthy, indeed, the name of 
civil government. 

Second. The other reason for our calling on Government to rid the land of the dram-shop is 
that the cause of temperance would, though incidentally, be nevertheless benefited by the 
measure for protecting person and property. To those who deny that Government has the 
right to undertake to help the cause of temperance, we reply that, however this may be, this 
cause has nevertheless most certainly the right of being incidentally benefited by any of 
the confessedly legitimate actions of Government. Moreover, if it must be admitted that 
Government has no right to make the benefiting of the cause of temperance one of its ob¬ 
jects, it nevertheless must also be admitted that Government has no right to hinder that 
cause—most emphatically no right to stop its way with the insuperable obstacle of the 
dram-shop. 

But it is said that the Government will not respond to the call to suppress the dram-shop un¬ 
less it come from a great political party. This is but too probable, notwithstanding that, in 
all matters which involve questions of fundamental morality, the ruler is bound to consult, 
not the will of the people, but the will of God. “ The ruler,” say the Scriptures, “is the minis¬ 
ter of God.” He is, whether it does or does not please the people, to act in accordance with 
the Divine will. But too possible, also, is it that both of our existing political parties are in 
such bondage to the interests and policies which cluster around and uphold the dram-shop, 
that neither of them will ever consent to demand its suppression. Hence it is that we are 
assembled in this convention, to declare the necessity for a new political organization, and to 
call upon our countrymen, North and South, East and West, to come into it. And our call is 
not to the friends of temperance only. It is also to all the friends of righteous government— 
to all who would have Government faithful to its duty to protect persons and property. 

Just here, where we have been speaking of the high and sacred mission of government, is 
the place to enter our most earnest and solemn protest against the scheme called “local 
option ” in the scheme for government, allowing the dram-shop in those localities which like it, 
and disallowing it in those localities which do not like it. Would the friends of this “local 
option ” have it adopted in the case of theft, or of getting goods under false pretences ? Cer¬ 
tainly not. They would have government forbid these offences everywhere, and entirely 
irrespective of the popular choice anywhere. Why, then, would they have the action of 
government in regard to dram-selling turn on the popular will ? 

These offences, in comparison of their effects with its, sink into mere peccadilloes by the side 
of dram-selling. Why, then, are they so inconsistent as to have Government forbid these and 
spare it ? The solution of this inconsistency is, that while people are educated (and chiefly, in 


16 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


such cases, by the mighty educating power of the law) to regard these offences as crimes, they 
can hardly be brought to regard as criminal that which is shielded by the laws, and is so far 
made sacred. This conditioning the action of Government on the popular will in the case 
of so great a crime as dram-selling ; this sinking of government from its Divine commission 
and absolute authority into a mere servant and tool—could not fail to go far to cheapen and 
disgrace it, and render it ineffective against all wrongs. Government should not be so degraded. 
On the contrary, it should be so magnified that not slavery, nor dram-selling, nor indeed any 
other common crime, could make headway under its forms. By the way, there is nothing that 
the people more need than a higher esteem of the sublime and sacred functions of government. 
But this can come only from right action on the part of Government. Let the people see it 
sweep away the dram-shop, and it will at once wear a new aspect in their eyes, and command 
their highest esteem; and then, too, will the dram-shop, in the light of this indignant action of 
the Government against it, appear far more abominable. 

We are not unaware of the well-nigh insuperable obstacles in the way of building up an in¬ 
dependent political party in the face of long-established political parties. Men quit such parties 
with great reluctance. A very lamentable evil is the education of the people into the belief that 
a permanent political party is a great good; and, therefore, that such a party as the Republican 
or Democratic ought not to be broken up. But a permanent political party with the constant 
tendency of any such party to destruction is a heavy curse, for it plants itself with great, and too 
frequently with invincible, power in the way of all progress, and clings for its own existence to 
the wrongs with which it is identified. No other but temporary political parties are justifiable 
—no other but as occasions call for. Right was it in Englishmen to form an anti-slavery party, 
and right was it in them when they had disposed of slavery to form an anti-corn-law party ; and 
right also is it in them to form, as they are now doing, an anti-dram-shop party. Right was it 
in Americans to form an anti-slavery party, and right is it now for them to pass on from the 
overthrow of slavery to an anti-dram-shop party. We give this name to our party because none 
more suitable—none more significant nor more truly descriptive could be given to it. One argu¬ 
ment in favor of our taking this name of the Anti-Dram-Shop Party is, that it leaves to our op¬ 
ponents, and will fasten upon them, their manifestly and deeply infamous name of the “ Dram- 
Shop 11 Party. We speak of them as one party because they will manifestly tend to such unity as 
fast as the true temperance men and friends of righteous civil government shall forsake their old 
parties to join our new one. The American anti-dram-shop party and the American dram-shop 
party will, from this good hour, go on to divide between themselves the whole American people. 

Many believe that, instead of forming a new political party, we should remain in our old ones, 
and put up here and there, now and then, anti-dram-shop men against the dram-shop candidates 
presented to us. Bolting at ‘ ‘ regular nominations,” and making other nominations in their stead, 
is a good expedient where the object is to select men from the party who will represent its funda¬ 
mental principles and essential character. But the expedient is a poor one, and must ever be 0 
unsuccessful where the object is to select men from the party who will go counter to those prin¬ 
ciples and that character. For years abolitionists clung to their pro-slavery parties and sought 
(alas! how vainly) to revolutionize them by accepting now and then, here and there, a nomination. 
No less vain will be any similar attempts to revolutionize our dram-shop parties. What if some 
of their members shall occasionally vote against the “regular nominations” ? It will avail no¬ 
thing toward changing the current and character of the parties. Innumerable eddies in the Nia¬ 
gara are, in their little or larger circles, turning portions of it up stream. So long as the present 
parties are rum-parties, and they will be until they are broken up, any little counter movements 
within them for temperance will be of no account. The mighty rum torrent will bear all before it; 
and, what is more, even the friends of temperance in these parties will but harm instead of help¬ 
ing the cause, for by continuing their names to these parties they will continue to strengthen the 
rum-power—these parties being the most efficient servants of that power. Of course, we readily 
admit that members of politkjgl parties can remain in them and yet work successfully to change 
many things in them. Nevertheless, they cannot change their ingrained and essential character. 
The parties will break up ere such changes can take place. A pro-slavery political party cannot 
become an anti-slavery party. It will break up before it can become the subject of so radical a 
change. And, indeed, it is so even in the case of an ecclesiastical party. The Methodists, Bap¬ 
tists, and Presbyterian Churches preferred being scattered into fragments to becoming anti-slav¬ 
ery. Our present political parties may consent to undergo changes in respect to tariffs, internal 
improvements and many other things ; but they cannot give up their vital connections with the 
dram-shop without giving up their existence—ay 1 and rum-soaked parties they cannot fail to 
be as long as they continue to be parties. And those of their members who would escape from 
their guilty responsibility for the dram-shop and its horrid work cannot do so without sundering 


The Prohibition Party. 17 

their connections with them. To all such penitent ones our new party will be a welcome and a 
happy refuge. • 

We shall, of course, have to encounter, continually and everywhere, the utter but effective 
falsehood that in asking Government to put away the dram-shop we are asking it to enact that 
most odious of all laws—a sumptuary law. How invidious as well as disingenuous to confound 
with a sumptuary law a law enacted for the protection of society from the dram-shop, the manu¬ 
factory of madmen and murderers—from peril to person and property far greater than the sum 
total of all the other perils which they incur ! In the legislation we call for we do not propose, 
as does the sumptuary law, to interfere with the household. We do not propose the searching 
of families, nor the hindering of them from drinking their domestic drinks or eating their spoiled 
meats. But we do propose that they shall be effectually debarred from bringing their dram-bottles 
into the public markets, as they are from bringing into it such meats. As temperance men we 
are opposed to all intoxicating drinks any and everywhere. As such we would do all in our 
power to persuade every home to relieve itself of the presence of this pre-eminent destroyer of the 
peace of the home. As temperance men we aim to make millions of rum-ruined and unutterably 
wretched homes the paradise they would have been but for this evil presence—the paradise they 
would have been had not the devil entered them. But nothing of all this domestic beauty and 
blessedness will be the object of our new political organization. This organization will war 
upon rumselling only. Its war, however, will be upon all rumselling—upon that in the fash¬ 
ionable as well as the unfashionable hotel ; upon that in the gilded parlor as well as that in the 
dirtiest den. 

What drinks do we propose to have Government proscribe ? None by their names, and 
such only as have power to intoxicate or madden the drinker. Let the law leave it to the jury 
to decide whether the drink in question is or is not an intoxicating or maddening one. The 
leaving of this chief question to a jury, to people drawn directly from the mass of the people, 
■would be a popular, as well as proper, feature in these laws. 

A very common objection to forming the new party is that, its members being required to 
agree in but one thing, it will therefore be but a one-idea party. Most absurd objection 1 And 
yet it has proved itself to be no less widely deluding than deeply absurd. The members nei¬ 
ther of the Democratic nor of the Republican party are required to agree in so much as one 
thing ; and hence, by this logic, which makes the new party only a one-idea party, the other 
parties are indeed no-idea parties. But the fact is that within these no-idea parties arc many 
ideas, and some of them warmly cherished. Within the new party will doubtless be quite as 
many and quite as tenaciously-held ideas as there arc in either of the other parties. More¬ 
over, the central idea, to which it expressly commits itself, being the duty of Government to 
protect, bravely and faithfully, the persons and property of its subjects, and especially from 
the dram-shops, which pre-eminently peril them, it may reasonably be expected that the party 
—certainly the great majority of its members—will not only adopt many an idea which is 
worthy to be associated with its grand central idea. And thus we conclude that our new party 
will not only not lack objects to pursue and ends to secure, but that these objects and ends 
will be eminently wise and proper. 

And then, too, as it begins in a brave and uncompromising regard for the right, and strikes 
its very first blow at the mightiest power in the land—the rum-power—and takes its place in a 
minority so small as to incur the scorn and ridicule of the majority, the party may well hope 
to be distinguished, not only for the wisdom of its measures, but for the courage and integrity 
with which it will adopt and maintain them. What if our new party were to accomplish 
nothing more for the protection of person and property—that first, if not, indeed, the sob 
work of government—than shutting up the dram-shops ? Would not this be doing immeasura¬ 
bly more for the country than all which the Democratic and Republican parties aim at ? The 
dram-shop suppressed, this great feeder of the vice of intemperance no longer in being, and 
the task of making men sober would be a comparatively easy one. But the good of being a 
sober people consists not alone in the comfort and pleasure of soberness. It is a good which 
begets well-nigh every other good. When the voters of our country, a small portion of whom 
are drunkards, shall be sober, our Government will, in all its departments, be sober, honest, and 
wise—a change which cannot come so long as the dram-shop is left to its great part in fashion¬ 
ing the character of both the people and the Government. 

We are urged to wait until the political parties have disposed of other and more important 
matters before we organize politically against the dram-shop. But these parties have nothing 
in hand that is at all so important as the shutting up of the dram-shop. Nay, there has seldom, 
if ever, been a time when the issues between the great political parties of the country were not 
more sharply defined and more engrossing than they now are. It is true that portions of the 
Democrats and portions of the Republicans express their preference for this, that, and the other 


18 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


measure ; but what the Democratic party as a whole or the Republican party as a whole de¬ 
sires, it is not easy to tell. The members of neither agree in respect to “reconstruction,' 1 to 
suffrage, to tariff, or in respect to the currency and its kindred questions. 

So far as regards the state of the political parties—their loosened bonds and their indefi¬ 
nite and uncertain aims—no better time than the present could have been chosen for organiza¬ 
tion. Those members of them who would like to see Government protect the people, and who 
look upon any people as emphatically unprotected amongst w r hom the dram-shop is allowed to 
pour out destruction and death, will find it easier than ever before to break out of their parties. 

The present is, also, a happily-chosen time for making political war upon the dram-shop, 
for the reason that the cause of temperance never stood more in need of the incidental bene¬ 
fits of such a war than now, when the late horrid strife between the North and the South has 
opened wider the flood-gates of all vice, and especially drunkenness. 

Our words are ended. We may not succeed in shutting up the dram-shop, but we will work 
very faithfully and very hopefully to this end. And then, even though we shall have utterly 
failed of our object, and the dram-shop shall remain as wide and deep and fixed a curse upon 
poor humanity as ever, a great success will nevertheless be ours—the great success of having 
done our duty. 

Central Committee of tlie National Prohibition Party. 

John Russell, Chairman, Detroit, Mich.; Col. S. R. Davidson, St. Paul, 
Minn.; J. M. May, Milwaukee, Wis.; Hon. D. R. Pershing, Warsaw, Ind.; 
G. T. Stewart, Norwalk, Ohio; Rev. H. Green, Marshalltown, Iowa; C. B Hull, 
Chicago, Ill.; John T. Ustick, Mo.; James F. Stewart, San Francisco, Cal.; 
Rev. Wm. Goodell, Bozrahville, Conn.; Hon. James Black, Lancaster, Pa.; 
0. K. Harris, Washington, D. C.; Prof. W. C. Thomas, Junction City, Kan.; 
Hon. JoshuaNye, Maine; Rev. Wm. Hosmer, Auburn, N. Y.; Hon. S. D. Ran¬ 
som, Jersey City, N. J. 

First National Nominatmg Convention. 

On December 9, 1871, the following call for a National Prohibition Conven¬ 
tion was issued : 

The friends of the National Prohibition Party are hereby requested to assemble in National 
Convention, at the city of Columbus, Ohio, on the 22dday of February, 1872, at 11 o'clock a.m., 
for the purpose of putting in nomination candidates for the offices of President and Vice-Presi¬ 
dent of the United States, to be supported at the next ensuing national election; and of transact¬ 
ing such other business as the Convention, when assembled, shall deem advisable. 

In view of the yet imperfectly organized condition of the party, it is thought better that the 
meeting should take the form of a mass convention rather than a delegated one. It is earnestly 
desired that each and every State and Territory in the Union may be represented, as largely as 
possible, in the Convention. The complete formation of this party is expected to constitute an 
important era in the history of American morals and politics, and all good citizens may well feel 
ambitious to participate in so w r orthy an enterprise. 

The allowed public traffic in intoxicating drinks is, unquestionably, the chief abettor of ig¬ 
norance, poverty, irreligion, immorality, and crime in our country; and tends more directly than 
any other cause to diminish productive industry, corrupt the elective franchise, and to endanger 
the security of the government. But, unfortunately, while many confess the truth of this gene¬ 
ral charge, they profess to differ widely regarding the proper method of treating the evil. And 
without enumerating theories, it is sufficient here to briefly state our own, viz.: That it is the 
duty of the Government, functionally, both by municipal and general legislation, to effectively 
prohibit the manufacture, importation, and sale of all intoxicating liquors to be used as a bever¬ 
age. This theory is so sharply in conflict with all others that it forms a clearly-defined political 
issue, and one which, from the nature of the case, will be hotly contested by the friends of the 
liquor-traffic. Prompt and efficient organization on the part of all Prohibitionists is, therefore, 
necessary. Moreover, prohibition of the liquor-traffic is strictly a legal and political question, com¬ 
pletely revolutionary of a long-established custom, and all experience proves that such measures 
can succeed only through the triumph of political organizations which espouse them. 

Believing, therefore, that the issues which have given significance to party politics in cur 
country for the past few 7 years arc now so far disposed of as to justify new 7 political combina- 


The Prohibition Party , 


19 


tions for worthy purposes, we cordially invite all of our fellow-citizens who agree with ns in our 
views to meet us in National Convention at the time and place above mentioned. 

JOHN RUSSELL, Chairman. 

GIDEON T. STEWART, Secretary. 

Jackson, Michigan, December 9, a.d. 1S7L 

Pursuant to above call, the National Prohibition Convention assembled in 
the Opera House, Columbus, Ohio, Thursday, February 22, 1872, and was 
called to order at 11 o’clock by Rev. John Russell, of Detroit, Michigan, 
Chairman of the National Central Committee of the Prohibition Party. 

On motion of Rev. D. C. Babcock, of New Hampshire, Hon. Henry Fish, 
of Port Huron, Michigan, was elected temporary chairman. 

On motion, Professor Elroy M. Avery, of East Cleveland, Ohio, was elected 
temporary Secretary. Prayer was offered by Rev. Mr. Dennison, of Washing¬ 
ton City. 

A committee of five on permanent organization was appointed, consisting 
of Messrs. Babcock, of New Hampshire ; J. A. Spencer, of Ohio ; Stephen B. 
Ransom, of New Jersey; J. W. Nichols, of Illinois; and J. W. Stinchcomb, of 
Ohio. 


Address of Welcome. 

Hon. G. T. Stewart, of Norwalk, Ohio, was then introduced and delivered 
the following address of welcome to the delegates : 

Mr. President and Members of the National Prohibition Party: 

In behalf of the Prohibition Party of Ohio I have the honor of expressing to you the pleasure 
with which we welcome you to our State. The party was formed here before it was organized 
by the National Convention of 1869 at Chicago. In six weeks after that convention we testified 
in support of its principles at the ballot-box, and in the two succeeding State elections we in¬ 
creased that first vote more than six-fold. Historically connected, this Convention stands as the 
eighth in the order of National Temperance Conventions in this country, which mark the or¬ 
ganized movement of the last forty years. The first was held at Philadelphia, in the year 1833, 
and, after tw r o days of earnest discussion by the eminent divines and philanthropists assembled 
there, it arrived at the conclusion that the sale and use of ardent spirits as a beverage is an im¬ 
morality. The second, which was held at Saratoga in 1836, declared for the total-abstinence 
pledge. The third, in 1841, exposed the moral and legal absurdity of license and regulation of 
the liquor-traffic by law. The fourth, in 1851, denounced the license error and pronounced for 
legal prohibition on the basis of the Maine Law. The fifth, at the close of the civil war, in 1865, 
reiterated the doctrines of total abstinence and prohibition. The sixth, held at Cleveland in 
1868, called for the exercise of the ballot as the only effective means to enforce prohibition. The 
seventh, at Chicago in 1869, gave practical form to this truth by the organization of a National 
Prohibition Party. And next in the advaneb comes this Convention to lay down a platform 
worthy of the cause, and to nominate upon it candidates for President and Vice-President of the 
United States, to represent before the world its central idea of liberty conserved by law, and pro¬ 
tection enforced by prohibition. 

This great doctrine of legal prohibition, which crowns as with gold the moral, social, and 
civil acme of the cause, to which it has arisen through the progress of these eight national con¬ 
ventions, is no novelty, and this grand political reform, which it inspires, is no experiment. It 
is a glorious resurrection from the dead. It comes up from the graves of the fathers. The 
history of prohibition goes far back of the present movement, to the foundation of the republic. 
The first National Prohibition Convention held on this continent was at the old State-IIouse 
in the city of Philadelphia, ninety-six years ago, and known in history as the First Continental 
Congress. On the 27th day of this month of February, in the year 1776, this platform of prohibi¬ 
tion was adopted by the Continental Congress, and recorded on its journals: 

“ Resolved , That it be recommended to the several legislatures of the United States to im¬ 
mediately pass laws, the most effectual, for putting an immediate stop to the pernicious practice 
of distilling, by which the most extensive evils are likely to be derived if not quickly prevented.” 

This is a platform brief, radical, and right. It strikes at the source of these “ extensive 
evils ” which it forbodes, by prohibiting the manufacture of that which is the manufacturer of 


20 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


them. It goes to the roots of the deadly upas—to the fountain heads of the poisoned rivers. It 
suggests no laws of license, or regulation, or of dollar-and-cent compensation for Resultant in¬ 
juries; but it denounces as “ pernicious ,” and calls for the immediate and total prohibition of a 
business which government now treats as virtuous and honorable. Here we can stand upon 
this doctrine of the fathers, and proudly echo voices like these, while the dram-shop politicians 
and press of this day deride us as fanatical, visionary, and impracticable. That memorable Con¬ 
gress, having laid down this platform of temperance by prohibition, in about four months after 
unfurled the flag of freedom, and embodied in the Declaration of Independence those great 
fundamental truths of the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man which form the 
basis of the Prohibition Party. It had warned the infant Republic against “ most extensive 
evils,” if prohibition should not be enacted, which prediction nearly a century since of awful ex¬ 
perience has fully verified. 

It is estimated that within the last fifty years, in the midst of all the wonderful efforts and 
achievements of the temperance reform, more than three millions of American citizens have been 
destroyed by the liquor-traffic, and more than seven millions of women and children, under our 
vaunted flag of protection, have sent up their cries of want, and shame, and woe, by the graves 
of murdered husbands and fathers, to the protecting and avenging God of the widow and father¬ 
less. Every year a hundred thousand new victims are added to the sacrifice, and new cries from 
broken hearts and blighted homes go up to heaven. In the dark ages a class of secret mur¬ 
derers practised their profession, in France and Italy, with fatal elixirs, with invisible powders, 
with deadly crystal drops, and other baneful inventions. They were known and feared as the 
Slow Poisoners , and at that name the cheek of the monarch and noble turned pale in the palace 
and the poorest peasant trembled in his hovel. No one talked then of license, or regulation, or a 
civil action for damages and costs. All cried out for instant and total prohibition. From king 
to peasant, by a common impulse, in view of the common danger, all society uprose to seek out 
and exterminate the murderers, and it was done. But what were those demoniacs of the dark 
ages in comparison with the three hundred thousand slow poisoners of this enlightened age and 
nation ? Those slew the bodies of a few hundred or a few thousand victims. These have de¬ 
stroyed not only the bodies but the intellects, the characters, and the souls of millions wfith an 
arm of murder that reaches to the lowest hell. And this commerce of death goes on expanding 
in volume and malignity, sweeping like a simoom before it the young men, the flower of the 
nation, degrading and destroying those who should become the pillars of strength and beauty in 
the Republic, the promise and pride of its future glory. And out of all this ocean of tears and 
blood the Government draws a yearly revenue of over fifty millions of dollars. In other words, 
the Government sells the lives of its citizens, in the open market, to its own chartered mur¬ 
derers, at about five hundred dollars a head; and the President of the United States, in his last 
annual message, recommends that Congress shall cultivate this branch of the business as the 
chief source of internal revenue. Looking at these national altars of human sacrifice, smoking 
with their slain hecatombs of a hundred thousand a year, we can see the fearful reality of those 
“most extensive evils ” predicted by the fathers; and then, turning to the pauper houses, idiotic 
and insane asylums, jails, prisons, penitentiaries, and gallowses, everywhere crowded with the 
wretched victims of this infernal traffic, we hear from official reports the old and oft-told story, 
that more than four-fifths of the ignorance, vice, poverty, and crimes of the nation flow from this 
“pernicious ” source. Add to this the vast pecuniary loss to the people and the productive in¬ 
dustry of the country, estimated at over a thousand millions of dollars a year. 

Over all this woe, and waste and ruin, the political teachers and guides of the people have 
thrown the mantle of personal rights and popular freedom. “ 0 Liberty!' 1 '' cried the French 
martyr, Madame Roland, as she was dragged by a drunken mob to the guillotine—“ 0 Liberty! 
what crimes are committed in thy name! ” It is in this sacred but profaned name, and for such 
carnivals of crime as those which deluged Paris with the blood of its citizens, that the dram¬ 
shops here are preparing the minds and hearts of the people. O sacred name of Liberty ! What 
though our fathers wrote it in martyr graves over the land, and plucked down the stars of heaven 
to emblazon it on their banners ? What though our eagles cry it from every mountain-peak and 
bear it upon their rushing wings, through all our boundless skies ? This land with lips of blood, 
those skies with tongues of fire proclaim our perfidy, they upbraid our national hypocrisy and 
guilt. 

Here in the midst of all our boasted free institutions, beneath that flag of stars, a million 
poor maniac slaves of intemperance clank their chains of fire in hopeless, awful servitude. And 
this million of enslaved lunatics wield the freeman’s ballot, control the elections, and rule the 
nation* They are bought and sold like the beasts in the shambles. Corruption riots at the 
ballot-box, in the halls of legislation, and invades even the sanctuaries of justice. The dram¬ 
shop is the supreme political power in the nation, and before it rulers and people, parties and 


The Prohibition Party\ 


21 


politicians, bow the knee in servile homage and base subserviency. Our republic is fast verging 
to the precipice over which all the old republics reeled to destruction. It must be speedily 
saved, or it will be swiftly lost. In the last twelve years the manufacture and traffic of intoxi¬ 
cating liquors has more than doubled in magnitude; all their crimes and curses have waxed in 
proportion. Every hour the moral night grows thicker and darker upon the nation, pierced 
only by the funeral bells of the slain and the wailings of the desolate. The earth is sick of 
slaughter. The heavens are tired of weeping over the abominations and desolations of this 
traffic. Oh! if we still hold our arms in supineness ; if we yet doubt, and pause, and hesitate, 
and linger, it would seem that the dead themselves, the murdered and buried victims of the 
traffic, will rend their sepulchres and do the work for us. 

You have come with the only standard unfurled that 'can rescue the republic and save the 
people, that of the total prohibition of the manufacture, importation and traffic of intoxicat¬ 
ing beverages, as / high crimes against God and man. 

You come on this day saered to the memory of him who was “ First in war, first in peace, 
and first in the hearts of Ms countrymen,” whose life illustrated and whose name has conse¬ 
crated your cause. You come to this State, the “first born of the Ordinance of 1787, whose im¬ 
mortal charter is sealed with the organic principles of “ Religion, Morality, and Knowledge ” as 
“ essential to free government.” You come to this city which bears the name of one of the 
most renowned of the world’s benefactors, whose moral courage should inspire your efforts. 
In the name of the fathers of the republic, whose mission you have come to fulfil; of the suf¬ 
fering millions whose prayers and tears incite your action ; of all the great interests of freedom, 
civilization, and humanity imperilled ; of our country in danger ; of religion whose Sabbaths 
are profaned and whose altars are trampled down; and of that God of temperance and freedom 
who led our fathers in triumph through the battle-fires of the Revolution, and who will guide 
through all this Red Sea of evils with a great deliverance, if we trust in Him and do our duty, 
we bid you welcome to your patriotic labors. 

Welcome, thrice Welcome ! 

The Committee on Permanent Organization made the following report : 

For President —S. B. Chase, of Pennsylvania. 

Vice-Presidents —Milton Kennedy, of Ohio; Rev. C. W. Dennison, Washington, D. C. ; F. 
L. Smith, Illinois ; Hon. Samuel Mayall, Minnesota ; Charles P. Russell, Michigan ; B. Rush 
Bradford, of Pa.; Rev. D. C. Babcock, of N. H.; S. L. Morrow, of N. H.; W. Armstead, of Cal. 

Secretaries —Elroy M. Avery, Ohio; Col. G. F. McFarland, Pennsylvania; and J. W. 
Nichols, Illinois. 

Address of Mon. S. SS. Chase. 

Upon being introduced to the audience Mr. Chase addressed the Conven¬ 
tion as follows ; 

Gentlemen of the Convention , Friends and Brothers in the great ivork of humanity of the 
nineteenth century: In accepting your invitation to assist you in putting in form your delibera¬ 
tions in this important session I feel great reluctance, but I can assure you that whatever of 
ability and fidelity I have In this cause, all shall be brought to make as effective as possible the 
deliberations of this body. (Applause.) It is always an important work to strike at habits, to 
strike at agents, of so long standing as are the drinking usages of society and the liquor-traffic in 
our nation. We must expect, my dear friends, to bring strong hearts to this work, and I feel 
that these are here to-day. (Applause.) No sinister motive can have induced the attendance of 
the members of this Convention. Love for the cause ; love for humanity ; a desire to sustain 
and perpetuate the institutions of our country and hand them down unsullied to our posterity, 
alone could have influenced you to come to Columbus to-day. This is an important Convention 
because our object is to strike at an .enemy that is warring against the vitality of the institutions 
of our country. 

Some men say that it is not a political question, and cannot legitimately be made one. 
Political parties are certainly organized for the purpose of preserving the institutions of our 
country. That must be their great and grand aim. If, then, we have an enemy that is striking 
at the vitals of these institutions, and none of the political parties are doing anything to destroy 
that enemy, then certainly there is a demand for a new organization. (Applause.) If in our 
country we have a sentiment that believes that the liquor-traffic is injuring the peace, the good 
order, the power, and the vitality of our State or nation ; if we believe that there is an enemy 
that is causing more grief and anguish in the thousands of fireside circles all over our country 
than any other, then it is our duty to have this sentiment represented and that representation 
brought to the ballot-box. (Renewed applause.) 


22 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


I confess to you that I have not been rapid in coming to the position I now occupy with 
reference to distinct political party action upon this question, but I trust that I shall not be any 
the less firm in the position I have taken because I have been brought to this position through 
prayer, through careful investigation of all the questions that underlie this great reform and the 
best interests of humanity. 

The power of our nation does not consist in its navies, in its forts, in its musketry, or in its 
magazines, but the power of our institutions is in the virtue and intelligence of our people. 
(Applause.) And everything that destroys or strikes at the vitality of this virtue is striking at 
the power of our nation. Is there anything that is more effectively striking at. the virtue and 
intelligence of our people than strong drink ? The very atmosphere surrounding the thousands 
of dram-shops that are sustained by law all over our country breathes forth corruption and 
moral destruction, and no agent is more effective in destroying the mind of man, in destroying 
the brain, than strong drink. 

The noble state of Iowa recently decided in one of her courts that a juryman 
taking a glass of whiskey during the progress of a trial was a sufficient reason for the 
arrest of judgment. (Applause.) A proud but correct position for any court to assume, 
because the constitutions of all our States guarantee the right of trial by jury. And if one of 
the twelve men I have selected according to law to try my rights of person or property shall 
destroy or impair his reason or judgment, and thereby render him incapable of weighing the 
facts brought before him and carrying them out in his decision, I am denied the rights guaran¬ 
teed to me and do not receive the justice to which I am entitled ; therefore I repeat, that strong 
drink is striking at my rights, my constitutional guaranteed rights in the jury-box, in our courts 
of justice. And so in the professional walks of life, and in the poor man’s life, in all the indus¬ 
trial pursuits of our country we find strong drink one of the most effective agents of destruc¬ 
tion, and the greatest obstacle to mental, moral, and material development of our nation in all 
its different departments. This, then, certainly, is a political question, and in no other way can 
we move except by organization, and if it is right that we should give expression to our 
sentiments at the ballot-box, we must do so before we can remove the legal sanction to the 
traffic. If it is right that we give expression to our sentiments at the ballot-box, and we must 
do so before we can prohibit the sale and manufacture of intoxicating spirits, then it is right 
that we should have an organization in order to make effectual our expression at the ballot-box. 
(Applause.) 

We frequently hear that all this is premature; that we must look at the effect of such 
distinct political action—that it will elevate this or that party to power. That is the argument 
we meet in all parts of our country, but let us bear in mind that it has never or can never be 
inexpedient for us to do right, for us to act in accordance with our convictions of duty. Gen¬ 
tlemen of the Convention, let us act in accordance with our convictions of right, and there is a 
power greater than man—there is a power that overrules our nation, and all the acts and delib¬ 
erations of men, and that will take care of the results of our actions. (Applause.) Let us, 
however, address ourselves to the people of this nation, so that they will commend us not only 
as philanthropists, but as men of judgment and as men who have a care for all the diversified 
interests of our country. Let us lay down a platform that not only shall represent our interests 
with reference to prohibition, but that represents our sentiments upon other questions—ques¬ 
tions of importance, which you and I must meet as men and as citizens of this country. 

With such a platform, one that all can stand upon who love humanity and love their 
country, we will commend ourselves to the convictions and to the good judgment of the people 
of this country. Thanking you again, gentlemen, for the honor which you have conferred upon 
me in calling me to preside over your deliberations, I ask your assistance, your kindness which 
I know I shall receive, as I endeavor to discharge the duties of the office. (Renewed applause.) 

Committees. 

A Committee on Credentials, consisting of Messrs. Auge, of Pennsylvania; 
Evans, of Ohio, and McGaw, of Pennsylvania, was then appointed. 

The following Committee on Platform was appointed: 

G. T. Stewart, of Ohio ; James Black, Pennsylvania ; J. Bussell, Michi¬ 
gan ; C. W. Dennison, Washington, D. C. ; S. M. Marrow, Indiana ; J. W. 
Nichols, Illinois ; D. C. Babcock, New Hampshire ; Stephen B. Kansom, New 
Jersey ; J. J. Marsh, Iowa ; Hon. Samuel Mayall, Minnesota ; Frank H. 
Brewer, Massachusetts ; H. D. McGaw, Pennsylvania ; J. A. Spencer, Ohio ; 
Daniel C. Gates, Kentucky ; Thomas Hornbrook, West Virginia. 


The Prohibition Party. 


A Committee on Address was appointed : 

C. W. Dennison, of Washington, D. C. ; S. B. Chase, Pennsylvania ; Dr. 
F. Merrick, Ohio ; James Black, Pennsylvania ; Col. G. F. McFarland, Penn¬ 
sylvania ; R. Rush Bradford, Pennsylvania ; and S. L. Marrow, of Indiana. 

Address of Mrs. J. <J. Swissluelm. 

Mrs. Swisshelm was next invited to address the Convention, and spoke as 
follows : 

I understand that this Convention has been called to consider the policy of taking poli¬ 
tical action upon the temperance movement. It is a long time since the anti-slavery men in 
this country resolved upon independent political action. I had the good fortune to edit one 
of their official organs from the beginning of that fight until we elected Mr. Lincoln. (Ap¬ 
plause.) And, O dear ! we did behave badly when we defeated Henry Clay. It was a terrible 
crime. (Laughter.) But we did it and never repented. (Renewed laughter.) And now if you 
go to work and nominate an honest man for President that you believe will carry out your prin¬ 
ciples, and you succeed in getting him fifty thousand votes in the United States, you will defeat 
somebody just as sure as you live. (Great Laughter.) And then those who are defeated will 
say, like “ Topsy,” that you are “ drefful wicked.” (Laughter.) But I think I would stand it. 
There is no principle before the people of the United States of America to-day that is worth a 
cent compared with the temperance question. (Applause.) 

Men talk of the tariff and of the national debt; how much has been paid and how much 
has not been paid ; but all these amount to nothing compared to the homes that are being de¬ 
stroyed by that demon—drunkenness. I never suffered from it myself in my own person, but 
I have seen enough of it all around me. 

We are all very much shocked as good Protestants at the history of the time when the 
Jesuits sold indulgences to sin. O dear ! how we are troubled about that feature of Popery. 
But can you tell any difference in selling indulgences to sin now ? Was it any worse to sell 
a man a particular indulgence to kill some one man he wanted to kill than it is to give unlim¬ 
ited indulgence to an unlimited number of men for a certain sum of money in hand, paid to 
the state, to murder body and soul of as many as he can possibly draw into his fangs, and 
to bring sorrow and ruin upon as many women and innocent children as he can ? Gentlemen, 
I should certainly advise you to take your stand on independent political action (applause) ; 
to nominate good strong men for your officers ; to make a good strong platform, and then I 
would take that much of General Grant’s policy—for there is that much good in it, though he 
does drink a little sometimes—and fight it squarely “ out on that line.” (Laughter and ap¬ 
plause.) And if you don’t defeat anybody this year, you will soon, that is certain. And if 
men are defeated they will begin to turn out and take into consideration what is to be done. 
There is a great deal of first-class temperance material in both the Republican and Democratic 
parties to-day, and if you can beat both of them into their original fragments, then you can 
get your temperance material organized in such a way as to kill intemperance, and I should 
never be the least bit troubled about the great anxiety people have for fear you may beat 
somebody’s good candidate. You do right, and trust in the Lord for the consequences. 

The delegates were requested to announce nominations for President: 

The names of Hon. James Black, of Pennsylvania; Chief-Justice Chase, 
of Ohio; Hon. S. B. Chase, Pennsylvania; Gerrit Smith, of New York; Gen. 
Neal Dow, of Maine; and Rev. John Russell, of Michigan; were presented as 
candidates for the nomination for the Presidency. 

For Vice-President the names of Henry Fish; James Black, of Pennsyl¬ 
vania; Dr. John Blackman, of New Hampshire; G. T. Stewart, of Ohio; J. A. 
Spencer, of Ohio; and Stephen B. Ransom, of New Jersey, were proposed. 

Platform of 1872. 

The Committee on Platform then made their report, which was read by 
Hon. G. T. Stewart, secretary of the committee. The platform was first read 
through and then by sections: 

Resolved, That wc reaffirm tlie three following resolutions adopted by the National Trohi- 
bition Convention held at Chicago, September 2, 1S69: 


24 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


Whereas , Protection and allegiance are reciprocal duties, and every citizen who yields 
obedience to the just commands of the Government is entitled to the full, free, and perfect 
protection of that Government in all the enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and 
private property; and 

Whereas, The traffic in intoxicating drinks greatly impairs the personal security and 
personal liberty of a large mass of citizens, and renders private property insecure; and 

Whereas, All other political parties are hopelessly unwilling to adopt an adequate policy 
on this question; therefore we in National Convention assembled, as citizens of this free re¬ 
public, sharing the duties and responsibilities of its Government, in discharge of a solemn duty 
we owe to our country and our race, unite in the following declaration of principles: 

1. That while we acknowledge the pure patriotism and profound statesmanship of those 
patriots who laid the foundations of this Government, securing at once the rights of the States 
severally, and their inseparable Union by the Federal Constitution, we would not merely gar¬ 
nish the sepulchres of our Republican fathers, but we do hereby renew our solemn pledges of 
fealty to the imperishable principle of civil and religious liberty embodied in the Declaration 
of American Independence and our Federal Constitution. 

2. That the traffic in intoxicating beverages is a dishonor to Christian civilization, inimi¬ 
cal to the best interests of society, a political wrong of unequalled enormity, subversive of the 
ordinary objects of government, not capable of being regulated or restrained by any system 
of license whatever, but imperatively demanding for its suppression effective legal prohibi¬ 
tion, by both State and national legislation. 

3. That while we recognize the good providence of Almighty God in supervising the inte¬ 
rests of this nation from its establishment to the present time, having organized our party for 
the legal prohibition of the liquor-traffic, our reliance for success is upon the same Omnipotent 
arm. 

And be it further Resolved : 

4. That there can be no greater peril to the nation than the existing party competition for 
the liquor vote; that any party not openly opposed to the traffic, experience shows, will en¬ 
gage in this competition, will court the favor of the criminal classes, will barter away the pub¬ 
lic morals, the purity of the ballot, and every object of good government for party success. 

5. That while adopting national political measures for the prohibition of the liquor-traffic 
we will continue the use of all moral means in our power to persuade men away from the in¬ 
jurious practice of using intoxicating beverages. 

6. That we invite all persons, whether total abstainers or not, who recognize the terrible 
injuries inflicted by the liquor-traffic, to unite with us for its overthrow, and secure thereby 
peace, order, and the protection of persons and property. 

rUBLIC SERVICE. 

7. That competing honesty and sobriety are indispensable qualifications for holding pub¬ 
lic office. 

8. That removals from public service for mere difference of political opinion is a practice 
opposed to sound policy and just principles. 

9. That fixed and moderate salaries should take the place of official fees and perquisites, 
the franking privilege, sinecures, and all unnecessary offices and expenses should be abolished, 
and every possible means be employed to prevent corruption and venality in office; and. by a 
rigid system of accountability from all its officers and guards over the public treasury, the ut¬ 
most economy should be practised and enforced in every department of the Government. 

10. That we favor the election of President, Vice-President, and United States Senators 
by direct vote of the people. 

FINANCE AND COMMERCE. 

11. That we are in favor of a sound national currency, adequate to the demands of busi¬ 
ness, and convertible into gold and silver at the will of the holder; and the adoption of every 
measure, compatible with justice and the public safety, to appreciate our present currency to 
the gold standard. 

12. That the rates of inland and ocean postage, of telegraphic communication, of railroad 
and water transportation and travel, should be reduced to the lowest practicable point, by 
force of laws wisely and justly framed, with reference not only to the interest of the capital 
employed, but to the higher claim of the general good. 

LABOR AND REVENUE. 

13. That an adequate public revenue being necessary, it may properly be raised by impost 
duties and by an equitable assessment upon the property and legitimate business of the conn- 


25 


The Prohibition Party. 


try; nevertheless, wo arc opposed to any discrimination of capital against labor, as well as to 
all monopoly and class legislation. 

14. That the removal of the burdens, moral, physical, pecuniary, and social, imposed by 
the traffic of intoxicating drinks, will, in our judgment, emancipate labor and practically thus 
promote labor reform. 

EDUCATION. 


15. That the fostering and extension of common schools under the care and support of 
the State, to supply the want of a general and liberal education, is a primary duty of good 
government. 

SUFFRAGE. 


7 


16. That the right of suffrage rests on no mere circumstance of color, race, former social 
condition, sex, or nationality, but inheres in the nature of man; and when from any cause 
it has been withheld from citizens of our country who are of suitable age and mentally and 
morally qualified for the discharge of its duties, it should be speedily restored by the people 
in their sovereign capacity. 

CITIZENS. 

17. 'That a liberal and just policy should be pursued to promote foreign immigration to 
our shores ; always allowing to the naturalized citizens equal rights, privileges, and protec¬ 
tion under the Constitution with those who are native born. 


The Woman Suflrag-e Question. 

An amendment to the resolution relating to woman suffrage was offered 
by J. W. Stinchcomb, of Ohio. The proposed amendment favored striking 
out the word “sex.” A prolonged discussion ensued. Mrs. H. N. K. Goff and 
D. Y. Kilgour, of Pennsylvania ; John A. Tweedy and L. B. Silver, of Ohio; 
and Jane Swisshelm.of Illinois, opposed, and J. W. Lindslay, W. G. Hubbard, 
and J. W. Stinchcomb, of Ohio, favored the amendment. The resolution 
was adopted by a large majority without amendment, only twenty-two voting 
for it. 

The Convention then proceeded to the selection of candidates for the of¬ 
fices of President and Vice-President. In addition to the names suggested 
at an early stage of the proceedings, delegates nominated Benjamin F. Butler, 
of Mass., and Judge David Davis, of Illinois. 

On motion, nominations were referred to the following committee, with 
instructions to select and report to the Convention one person for President 
and one for Vice-President : Messrs. Jay Odell, of Ohio ; G. F. McFarland, 
of Pa.; M. A. Dougherty, of Mich.; J. W. Nichols, of Ill.; D. C. Babcock, of 
N. H.; Mrs. H. N. K. Goff, of Pa.; J. S. Garrigues, of Ind.; J. J. Marsh, of 
Iowa; L. B. Silver, of Ohio; Samuel Mayall, of Minn.; F. H. Brewer, of Mass.; 
Daniel G. Gates, of Ky.; Thomas Hornbrook, of W. Va. 

The committee, after consultation, reported the following : For President 
—James Black, of Pennsylvania; for Vice-President— Rev. John Russell, 
of Michigan. 

Speech of James Black. 

Mr. Black, being repeatedly called for, came forward and spoke as fol¬ 
lows : 

Gentlemen and Ladies of the Convention , Friends of prohibition of the curse produced by 
strong drink: I think I am not insensible to your kindness for the honor conferred upon me 
by nominating me for the position you have seen fit this evening. I have never sought posi¬ 
tion of any kind in my life. Whatever of position in the church or in relation to the tem¬ 
perance cause I have held, the various positions I have had the pleasure to enjoy, has been 
given me by the free choice of friends and not by my solicitation; and although I shrink from 
the notoriety and toil your choice will impose, I suppose duty requires me to say, “ God’s 
will be done.” 


2G 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


In this movement of temperance, so far as I can sound the depths of my own heart and 
feelings, I have been actuated by a desire to work for the glory of God, for the protection of 
myself and family, and the good of those around me. 

For some three weeks before coming to this Convention—as some of you are aware—I was 
confined to my room by sickness. Prior to leaving, my wife and I, who are partners in all the 
relations of life, asked God’s blessing upon my journey and upon this Convention. 

I am in heart, in soul, thoroughly convinced of the importance of the principle that lias 
called us together. I am thoroughly, heartily, and honestly of the conviction that the traffic 
in strong drink prevailing in our land, resulting from custom supported by appetite and in¬ 
trenched in party, cannot be overthrown until the Christian people of the land are taught 
the duty of using their political influence, as they have been taught to use their moral influ¬ 
ence, for its overthrow. (Applause.) The dram-shop trade, being supported and fostered by 
governmental policy, can be overthrown only by political means. I regard, therefore, our 
movement of to-day, or of the past two years if you please, as educational. I believe we shall 
find its great value in that particular, and with this conviction, as God gives me strength to as¬ 
sert the right, I mean to stand up for the right. (Applause.) The woes of intemperance are 
brought home to the consciousness of us all. There is not a fireside that it has not cursed. 
There is a skeleton in every household because of the demon of intemperance. And it is pass¬ 
ing strange and one of the most wonderful things that the history of the world has ever 
shown, that in this day of Christian knowledge ; in this day wdien Christian principles are re¬ 
cognized ; in this day of scientific investigation, that a nation so intelligent, so happily con¬ 
stituted as ours can tolerate this curse for a moment. It can only be understood in the light 
of revelation. I have thought much upon this subject, and tried to investigate some with re¬ 
ference to it, and have in those investigations and thoughts come to this point laid down in 
Scripture: that “wine is a mocker,” “a deceiver,” and he that is deceived thereby is not 
wise ; and also that it is by its delusive narcotic power inherent in the drink that men are 
led captive. 

The narcotic power strong drink has is such as not only to disturb the understanding, 
but to so becloud the intellect that in true methods of deliverance the people see darkly. For 
forty years we have been educating the people in the moral and religious aspects of this question, 
and to-day we can see that we have realized very great success. A most wondrous change in 
knowledge and customs has been effected. Upon the part of intelligent Christian people there 
is no doubt as to the moral iniquity of the traffic, and the moral bearing of its use, and when 
viewed as a scientific question by intelligent men the use of liquor is acknowledged to be a 
curse. Our moral convictions upon this subject arc clear ; our convictions of civil duty concern¬ 
ing the drink must be made equally as clear. Let people now be taught to feel that it is just as 
much their duty to vote according to their convictions on this question—to go to the polls and 
before the public declare as citizens and heads of families that this monster evil must be put 
down—as it is to teach children in the Sabbath-school to beware of strong drink, or to persuade 
your sons and daughters to sign the pledge. Ours is a great educational duty in this respect. I 
do not expect that the Prohibition Party, which for the first time has put its candidates into the 
field, shall have great immediate success, but I do firmly believe that its principles will finally 
prevail, for it is God’s truth. The principle we hold dear to-day shall triumph either through 
this form of organization, or through that of some other political party that shall yet gain 
supremacy, and which shall make the prohibition of the liquor-traflic the grand central idea. 

/ (Applause) 

* It is strange to me that any man loving a woman and having her occupy a position by his 
side as the mother of his children, the teacher and educator of his children, and entrusting his 
worldly interests with her, seeking her counsel, and receiving comfort oft-times at her hands, 
can feel that so far as the performance of civil duties are concerned she is disqualified. 
(Applause.) I do not so believe, but am satisfied the virtue and intellect of woman, God’s 
appointed “ help-meet,” will find a fitting sphere in the civil as well as the domestic relations 
of life. 

"N^^We have resolved with reference to labor reform, and it is a great practical question. 
Alft)W me to say this : that over six hundred million dollars, a sum greater than the value of all 
the flour, cotton goods, boots and shoes, woollen goods, clothing, books, newspapers, and other 
printing produced in the United States in 1800—as appears from the Statistical Bureau at Wash¬ 
ington—are wasting annually in intoxicating drink in the United States. By far the greater 
portion of this waste falls upon the bone and sinew of the land, and, gentlemen, if God shall 
give us success in bringing to the approbation of the people the method we have resolved upon 
to-day (though it may not be realized in the near future), and the curse of the liquor-traffic 
Shall be lifted from our people, the interest now most cursed will be blessed by such emancipa- 


/ 


The Prohibition Party. 27 

tion. And what branch of business or industry of our country will reap a greater reward than 
will the laboring class ? Thus emancipated in mind and intellect, emancipated in body, 
emancipated in all the interests that affect their being from the cruel bondage the drink-traffic 
entails, is there any measure of a practical character that could more certainly throw open 
wider the door to success and ensure to every man who labors a just recompense of reward for 
his labor ? 

The drink trade, national wide (with small exception) as our boundaries, is recognized by 
national law, and from it “ blood-money ” received into the national treasury. In the estima¬ 
tion of temperance men, this trade is a “sin against God and a crime against man,” and, so 
believing, the Prohibition Party is organized for a national effort to remove this sin of intempe¬ 
rance by suppressing the crime of dram-selling. 

The present policy of the state is license or authorization of the manufacture and traffic in 
these poisonous beverages. This policy is not only morally wrong, but also politically wrong. 
If you or I, or any citizen, shall so use our high power and right by the exercise of our vote to 
directly or indirectly support or encourage this bad business, we are personally involved in the 
moral guilt as fully as if we used word or example. “ Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor 
drink, etc.,” applies to nations as well as to individuals. 

This bad policy of the 6tate is the result of party, for the government of the state is by 
party. Present parties having wholly failed to see the wrong, or impotent or unwilling to change 
this wrong policy, makes the need and justification for the organization of the Prohibition Party, 
which, not losing sight of other measures necessary for good government, will give itself to the 
special duty of enlightenment and placing government on this question in harmony with divine 
and natural law. 


Address of Eev. Jolm Russell. 


SUi 

/ 

f eli' 

* roc 


Mr. Russell, being called upon, came forward and spoke as follows : 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Convention: 

My sentiments are so well known regarding the organization of the Prohibition Party, and 
its necessity as a movement for the suppression of the liquor-traffic, that I need not reiterate 
them here. It has been with me for several years past a growing, strengthening conviction that 
the matter of suppressing the traffic in intoxicating drinks by law was so strictly and properly a 
political question, and was so much demanded for the successful moral and religious instruction 
of the people, that, to accomplish the work, we must inaugurate the political machinery for the 
accomplishment of this political duty. With the parties already in existence, not having endors¬ 
ed it, being unable to do so, simply because it was a radical question and would raise a para¬ 
mount question in the estimation of the members of these parties, and they, being divided, could 
not endorse it and could only give a divided policy, which would never amount to anything in 
the accomplishment of the work. We must therefore organize around this radical question, and 
we have this day, as I believe, adopted a wise, well-digested, and truthful platform. First, be¬ 
cause we agree in the necessity and wisdom of this organization, and secondly, because we agree 
in the doctrines enunciated upon the subject of the liquor-traffic, and further, because we agree 
in the political doctrines set forth in the platform adopted. 

It is too late to enter into an analysis of that platform now, but it will afford me pleasure in 
the future as I go before the people, God willing, to discuss this platform, and I believe I shall 
be able to present such an analysis as to convince candid people, who have not yet given suffi¬ 
cient attention to the subject to be convinced, of its truthfulness and importance, and to per¬ 
suade some of them, at least, to embrace it and support it for the advancement of the interests 
our common country. 

On the question of suffrage, which has been a prominent question before us, and which has 
elicited more debate perhaps than any other, I wish to say a word. You will please read that 
resolution. It declares that the right of suffrage is not accidental, but inheres in the nature of 
man. None who have opposed the resolution to-night have essayed to dispute that point. If it 
is inherent in the nature of man, God put it there. If that be a political right placed in human 
nature by God, the Great Author of man, why shall we not defend the principle ? Why should 
we continue that robbery ? Why not begin giving back what we have taken away of God’s best 
gift to man ? This truth is no new doctrine. Go to the Declaration of American Independence, 
go to the doctrine set forth in the preamble to our Constitution, and you find there the declaration 
that all just powers of government proceed from the consent of the governed. Where does it 
proceed from ? From the ballot-box. Are women governed by the law ? Certainly they are. 
Are they not then unjustly governed ? And are we not practising injustice ? If so, ought we not 
to cease to do evil and learn to do well. (Cries of Hear, hear ! ”) 


28 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


We have declared that a just policy should be adopted to promote foreign immigration to 
our soil. Why should we not do it ? From the beginning we have declared this free country to 
be an asylum for the oppressed of all nations, and have opened wide our arms inviting them to 
make their homes among us; and shall we cease to do this ? Never, I trust. Do you say it will 
not do to urge these foreign people, these unscrupulous people, to come to this land ? What will 
you do about it ? They are coming ; they have a right to come ; it is the policy of our Govern¬ 
ment to let them come. What will you do about it. Why, only let them come—that’s all. (Ap¬ 
plause.) And stand ready to give them the best reception you can. We say that the great dan¬ 
ger of this people is the grog-shops, and we propose now to take the grog-shops out of the way 
and make a clean place for them on this part of God’s green earth, and then ask them to come 
over. (Great applause.) 

In viewing our platform, I feel, sir, very much like saying, in the language of one of our 
great and noble statesmen when referring with patriotic pride to the Bunker Hill Monument, 
“.There it stands.” God bless this noble monument we havereared to-day. Let the politi¬ 
cians of this land criticise it if they will, and see what they will do at it. (Laughter.) It will 
be time enough for us to defend it when they have said anything sensible against it. (Re¬ 
newed laughter.) When some such resolutions were adopted elsewhere by this party since 
its organization, one of the leading journalists of this country did say that the platform gotten 
up by this party was too narrow. And a leading Republican daily journal of this country did 
say of such a platform adopted by the Prohibition Party that there were more eggs than this 
hen can cover. (Laughter.) That is to say, there are more principles than this platform in¬ 
corporated. Well, all I have to say to such criticism is that it is very likely. The misfortune, 
however, is that all the other eggs are spoiled. (Laughter and applause.) They can keep their 
old Democratic and Republican hens sitting on their old eggs as long as they please, but in 
setting our young Prohibition hen we want fresh eggs. (Laughter.) And I think you will 
find them in this platform. Now I would not have taken up this very classic figure if it had 
not been furnished to our hands. 

Let me say there are living principles in this platform—principles which, I think, have 
never been so clearly and forcibly set before the American people. 

I agree that we are yet weak and comparatively small in numbers, but as another has said, 
“ I would rather be right than to be president.” We would better be right and comparatively 
small than to be great numerically in this country. It is said that small parties never amount 
to anything. That is true, while they are email parties, but when they have grown great 
by their principles so as to represent a constituency able to select its officers, then they are 
small parties no more. Perhaps it was Macaulay who said, “ Revolutions are never successful, 
simply because when they are successful, none dare call them revolutions.” (Laughter.) 
They are governments then. Small parties at the beginning—third parties as they are some¬ 
times called by our enemies—are the only parties that ever do amount to anything, because 
usually not until the necessity arises for such parties are they called into existence—real par¬ 
ties I mean, not bogus parties. There is a demand for them which brings them into existence, 
and they become the growing party, and by and by amount to something, and become the 
party of the land—the first party and not the third. Our Republican friends will remember 
that there happened to be three parties in this country in 1856. I wonder which was the third 
party. There was a Democratic party and a Whig party before—yes, and a Free-Soil party, 
and the Republican party was its legitimate successor. Now which was the third party, and 
which amounted to something. Our Republican friends have thought they have amounted to 
something since that time ; we think so too, and the old Democratic party think so. The 
Whigs thought so until they were buried so deep that they could not think at all. (Laughter ) 
And by the way, the old Democratic party has been dead this long time, and is only walk¬ 
ing around to save funeral expenses. (Great laughter and applause.) 

The Republican Party is living yet, holding the offices of the nation, and sneers at us now 
and calls us the third party. But if we succeed as well as they did, we shall be the first party 
by and by. 

But independent of all these cant sayings, of all these jeers and disrespectful allusions, we 
have to-day before God, and before the sober, thoughtful American people, in convention 
assembled, simply reiterated those solemn declarations which we adopted a little more than two 
years ago in regard to the liquor-traffic, and have ratified our declarations then made by the 
further act of placing in nomination candidates for the suffrages of the American people. We 
have also extended our platform so as to show that we are not a one-idea party, that we are not 
fanatic, but a Convention of sober men and women ; and, by the way, did you ever think of that ? 
I venture it is the second sober national political Convention ever held on this continent . 
(Voices, “That’s so,” and applause.) The Chicago Convention held in 1869 was the first, and 


29 


The Prohibition Party. 

this the second, being the first national sober Convention that ever nominated candidates for 
President and Vice-President in the United States. (Applause.) Is it not an honor, sir (turning 
to the President), to preside over such a Convention ? Indeed it is, and I congratulate you. 
(Laughter and applause.) Is it not an honor to be nominated for President of the United States 
upon such a ticket as that ? Yes, it is, and I congratulate that nominee. Is it not an honor, sir, 
to have the second place on such a ticket at the hands of such a Convention as this ? And don’t 
you congratulate me ? (Renewed laughter and loud applause.) 

Now that I have recovered a little from my early embarrassment on this subject, I 
propose simply to say that upon my conscience and before God, and from a sense of duty, I 
accept this trust at your hands. (Applause.) I wish it might have fallen on abler hands when I 
know there are so many men here that are competent for this trust that could have made greater 
sacrifice, that had more time to give, more money, more intellect, more power and social posi¬ 
tion, but I accept this honor and this place, and will do the best I can to defend the principles 
you have this day, placed before the American people. 

The President of the Convention was authorized to appoint an Executive 
Committee consisting of one member from each State of the Union. 

Remarks were made by the President, after which the Convention closed 
its labors with prayer, led by the Rev. C. W. Denison, of Washington City. 

National Prohibition Conference of 1875. 

In accordance with a call issued by Hon. S. B. Chase, Chairman of the 
National Prohibition Party Committee, a Conference was held at Sea Cliff, 
L. I., Tuesday, July 13, 1875. Hon. S. B. Chase presided, and John F. 
Hume, of New York, and Col. George F. McFarland, of Pennsylvania, were 
chosen secretaries. 

The Committee on Resolutions, consisting of James Black, of Pennsylvania; 
John A. Rockwell, of Connecticut; Hon. C. C. Leigh, of New York; and Wil¬ 
liam J. Kelly, of New Jersey, presented the following resolutions, which, after 
full discussion, were adopted: 

1st. Resolved, That regarding the platform of the National Prohibition Party announced at 
Columbus, Ohio, February 22, 1872, as wise and fully expressive of prohibition principles and 
policy, this Conference commends the same to the hearty support of all Prohibitionists. 

2d. Resolved , That the history of the Prohibition movement conclusively proves that a 
State prohibition law has nowhere been obtained except through and by the instrumentality of 
the ballot-box; and also, that such laws, by denying the opportunity for selfish gains, the gratifi¬ 
cation of unnatural appetite, and the removal of facility for deception and political corruption, 
will not be obeyed by base or designing men, and will not be enforced by officers not especially 
pledged thereto or not having a constituency behind them to punish or reward ; and these facts 
demonstrate the necessity of the Prohibition Party for the enactment and execution of such laws. 

3d. Resolved , That the Democratic party by its party declarations and acts proves itself his¬ 
torically and chronically committed to the policy of license liquor laws; and the Republican 
party, although claiming to be the party of progress and moral ideas, not having during its whole 
history of fourteen years’ possession of power in most of the States of the Union originated and 
maintained a prohibitory law in any one State, but having by amendment first weakened, and 
then in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Michigan, and other States wholly destroyed, 
the prohibition laws it found upon the statute-books; and also having as a part of its political 
faith and policy declared in its national platform, adopted June 7, 1872, that liquor and tobacco 
are fitting sources of national revenue, and have licensed the same ; and also, according to the 
testimony of Herman A. Raster, the author of its sixteenth plank, is opposed to “all Sunday and 
temperance laws,” must be arraigned as false to principle and promise and wholly unwilling to 
give protection from the individual, social, moral, and pecuniary evils which the liquor-traffic un¬ 
ceasingly inflicts, and therefore we turn, trusting in God and our votes, to build up the Prohibition 
Party as our only hope and shield against these wrongs. 

4th. Resolved, That common experience demonstrates that the drink-traffic is the deathly foe 
to all business undertakings, Christian and educational interests, and that this traffic finds its 
support in a false civil policy. Therefore we do cordially invite all professing Christians and all 
good citizens to unite with the Prohibition Party as the only political organization which pro¬ 
mises effective and true legislation concerning this traffic. 


30 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


5th. Resolved, That the chairman be recommended at the earliest day practicable to consti¬ 
tute the National Prohibition Party Committee, by appointing thereon a representative from each 
State in which there is now or may hereafter be formed a Prohibition Party organization, and 
that so far as possible we recommend the appointment of chairmen of State committees. 

6th. Resolved, That inasmuch as the members of the National Committee are widely separated 
by State lines, we recommend this Conference to appoint a committee of five to aid the chairman 
of said committee in the work of organization, in the preparation of rules therefor, the printing 
and circulation of documents, raising funds, the establishment or support of representative jour¬ 
nals when and where deemed advisable, and generally such matters and things as will promote 
the interest of the Prohibition Party. 

7th. Resolved, That we recommend that the call for the National Convention of the Prohibi¬ 
tion Party for the nomination of candidates for President and Vice-President be held in the month 
of May or June, 1876, in the city of Cleveland, Ohio. 

8th. Resolved, That, gratefully recognizing the good providence of God in guiding our fathers 
in the formation of our government “ by the people and for the people,” and protecting our na¬ 
tion from foes within and foes without, we devoutly turn to Him, in trust that, the Prohibition 
Party having been organized for the sole purpose of securing protection from the drink-shops, 
our reliance for success is upon its being based upon the principles of his revealed word, the 
guidance of the Holy Spirit, and his omnipotent arm. 

Second National Nominating Convention. 

The second National Nominating Contention of the Prohibition Reform 
Party assembled in Halle’s Hall, in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, at ten o’clock 
a.m., May 17, 1876, and, in the absence of the chairman of the National 
Committee, was called to order by the Secretary, Rev. John Russell, of Michi¬ 
gan. Rev. H. A. Thompson, President of the Otterbein University, opened 
the exercises with prayer. 

Gen. Green Clay Smith, of Frankfort, Ky., was elected temporary Chair¬ 
man ; Chas. P. Russell, of Detroit, Mich., was elected Secretary, and J. 0. 
Brayman, of the Standard , Chicago, Ill, was elected Assistant Secretary. 

J. Odell, Esq., of Ohio ; Rev. George F. Clark, of Massachusetts, and 
Hon. Archibald McAllister, of Pennsylvania, were appointed a Committee on 
Credentials, and G. T. Stewart, of Ohio ; John Russell, of Michigan ; R. A. 
Brownell, of Pennsylvania, a Committee on Rules. 

The Committee on Credentials presented a report, showing twelve States 
represented in the Convention by over one hundred delegates. 

Appointment of Committees. 

Committees were appointed as follows : 

On Platform Committee.— Gideon T. Stewart, Ohio; P. K. Phoenix, Illinois; Pev. John 
Russell, Michigan ; Rev. Stephen Merritt, New York ; Rev.. S. Paulson, Kansas ; Rev. G. F. 
Wells, Minnesota; H. W. Brown, Wisconsin; A. W. Merwin, Connecticut; Geo. F. Clark, 
Massachusetts ; Green Clay Smith, Kentucky ; James Black, Pennsylvania ; R. Bingham, New 
Jersey. 

On Permanent Organization. —Dr. L. Barnes, of Ohio ; W. A. Smith, of Pennsylvania ; D. 
J. Smith, of Michigan ; Rev. G. F. Clark, of Massachusetts ; C. H. Meade, of New York. 

On National Executive Committee.— Hon. James Black, Chairman, Lancaster, Pa.; Rev. John 
Russell, Secretary, Detroit, Mich. ; Jas. L. Henderson, Covington, Kentucky; T. B. Demarec, 
Kentucky ; John S. Littell, Newark, N. J ; S. B. Ransom, Jersey City, N. J. ; C. Henry Meade, 
Buffalo, N. Y. ; C. C. Leigh, Brooklyn, N. Y. ; Rev. II. A. Thompson, Westerville, Ohio ; Mrs. M. 
McClellan Brown, Alliance, Ohio ; J. C. Ervin, Rev. W. W. Satterlee. both of Minneapolis, 
Minn. ; Jacob Bambough, Marion, Kansas; John Paulson, Fort Scott, Kansas; Arthur Kirk, 
Pittsburgh, Penn. ; J. L. Richardson, Scranton, Penn. ; H. W. Brown, Oshkosh, Wis. ; T. D. 
Stone, Ripon, Wis, ; Nathan Beal, Rev. G. F. Clark, Massachusetts ; J. W. Haggard, Bloom¬ 
ington, Ill. ; Mrs. Fannie W. McCormick, Fowler, Ill. ; Hon. A. Williams, Ionia, Mich. ; Mrs. 
Adella R. Worden, Ypsilanti, Mich. 


The Prohibition Party. 


31 


James II. Raper, of the United Kingdom Alliance of Great Britain, was 
present, and, being introduced to the Convention, s[ oke biiefly. 

The Committee on Permanent Organization reported as follows : 

President— Rev. H. A. Thompson, of Ohio. 

M.ce-Presidents— Hon. Robert M. Foust, of Pennsylvania ; William Headly, of New York ; 
Rev. Dr. Cummings, of Connecticut; lion. A. L. Chubb, of Michigan ; J. Paulson, of Kansas ; 
Mrs. M. McClellan Brown, of Ohio. 

Secretaries— Charles P. Russell, of Michigan ; J. O. Brayman, of Illinois. 


Rev. William CJoodell’s Letter. 

The following letter from the Rev. William Goodell was read to the Con¬ 
vention : 

To the Rev. John Russell, Secretary National Prohibition Committee, Detroit, Mich.: 

Dear Sir : In response to the call of your committee for a National Nominating Conven¬ 
tion at Cleveland, Ohio, on the 17th day of May, inst., and also in pursuance of an appoint¬ 
ment as a delegate to that convention by a State Prohibitory Convention for Wisconsin, at 
Oshkosh, March 21, and being disabled by bodily infirmity from attending in person (much to 
my regret), I feel impelled to address to the Convention a few thoughts. 

Never has there been held in this country a more important National Nominating Con¬ 
vention than your own. Never has a greater national evil called, or more loudly called, for 
removal. Never have those seeking its removal more faithfully or more patiently resorted to 
all other conceivable measures for relief, without success, nor found themselves more com¬ 
pletely shut up to the one only remaining alternative in the sphere of political action. Moral 
means alone, however indispensable and powerful, cannot avail for the discharge of political 
responsibilities and duties, nor for the removal of so gigantic a political evil. It could not 
avail for the removal of chattel slavery. It cannot avail for the removal of liquor slavery. The 
oligarchy of the plantation then controlled the two great political parties. The oligarchy of 
the brewery, the distillery, and the liquor importers and dealers , with their ever-attendant 
mobocracy of the saloons and the gutter, now control equal'y the two great political parties of 
to-day. Equally are those two parties reeking and rotten with corruption, each successfully 
exposing its rival, to the dismay of both, in the sight of the world. 

To talk of working inside of two such parties, to reform them—the reformers voting with 
them, and separating themselves from each other, voting against each other, and against their 
own professed principles— this would be to exhibit a strange specimen of moral suasion and 
of political sagacity. 

Equally delusive were the day-dreams of constructing an honest party out of the shattered 
debi'is of the two overthrown parties, without overthrowing along with them that corrupt alli¬ 
ance between the Government and the dishonest, plundering liquor-traffic by which the Ad¬ 
ministration or its officials are constituted partners in the dishonest business, and joint par¬ 
ticipants in the plunder, to be divided between them, so long as they can agree, or litigated at 
the expense of the plundered people when they cannot. The art of conducting honestly a dis¬ 
honest business is yet to be discovered, as is likewise the ability and disposition of a govern¬ 
ment to punish robbers while it is confederated with them. 

Your Convention, I trust, will be embarrassed with no proposals of half-way measures, 
temporizing expedients, or self-stultifying concessions and compromises. These they will 
leave to crumble in the tomb of the dreary past. The teachings of Holy Writ, the testimony 
of history, the revelations of science, the foundation principles of civil government, legisla¬ 
tion, jurisprudence, and political economy will accompany and sustain them. 

Every legitimate, healthful, and lawful interest, every beneficial institution or enterprise, 
would be promoted by the success of your enterprise, and with confidence may be called upon 
to second your efforts. 

Fidelity to the truth and to conscience, reverence to God, benevolence to man, anticipa¬ 
tions of human progress, and of a perfected Christian civilization, the reign of righteousness, 
security, peace on earth, and good will to man—all these have their high claims upon your 
Convention, and demand of you your best endeavors to attain the ends of your assembling. 

Your confiding fellow-laborer, 

William Goodell. 

Janesville, Wis., May 2,1876. 


32 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


Platform of 1876 


G. T. Stewart, of Ohio, in behalf of the Platform Committee, submitted 
the following, which was adopted : 

The Prohibition Reform Party of the United States, organized in the name of the people to 
revive, enforce, and perpetuate in the Government the doctrines of the Declaration of Indepen¬ 
dence, submit in this Centennial year of the Republic for the suffrages of all good citizens the 
following platform of national reforms and measures : 

First—The legal prohibition in the District of Columbia, the Territories, and in every other 
place subject to the laws of Congress, of the importation, exportation, manufacture, and traffic 
of all alcoholic beverages, as high crimes against society ; an amendment of the national Consti¬ 
tution to render these prohibitory measures universal and permanent; and the adoption of treaty 
stipulations with foreign powers to prevent the importation and exportation of all alcoholic 
beverages. 



Second—The abolition of class legislation and of special privileges in the Government, and 
the adoption of equal suffrage and eligibility to office without distinction of race, religious creed, 


property, or sex. 

Third—The appropriation of the public lands in limited quantities to actual settlers only ; 
the reduction of the rates of inland and ocean postage ; of telegraphic communication ; of rail¬ 
road and water transportation and travel to the lowest practical point by force of laws, wisely 
and justly framed, with reference not only to the interests of capital employed but to the higher 
claims of the general good. 

Fourth—The suppression, by law, of lotteries and gambling in gold, stocks, produce, and 
every form of money and property, and the penal inhibition of the use of the public mails for 
advertising schemes of gambling and lotteries. 

Fifth—The abolition of those foul enormities polygamy and the social evil, and the protection 
of purity, peace, and happiness of homes by ample and efficient legislation. 

Sixth—The national observance of the Christian Sabbath, established by laws prohibiting 
ordinary labor and business in all departments of public service and private employments (works 
of necessity, charity, and religion excepted) on that day. 

Seventh—The establishment by mandatory provisions in national and State constitutions, 
and by all necessary legislation, of a system of free public schools for the universal and forced 
education of all the youth of the land. 

Eighth—The free use of the Bible, not as a ground of religious creeds, but as a text-book of 
purest morality, the best liberty, and the noblest literature, in our public schools, that our children 
may grow up in its light, and that its spirit and principles may pervade our nation. 

Ninth—The separation of the Government in all its departments and institutions, including 
the public schools and all funds for their maintenance, from the control of every religious sect or 
other association, and the protection alike of all sects by equal laws, with entire freedom of reli¬ 
gious faith and worship. 

Tenth—The introduction into all treaties hereafter negotiated with foreign governments of 
a provision for the amicable settlement of international difficulties by arbitration. 

Eleventh—The abolition of all barbarous modes and instruments of punishment. The re¬ 
cognition of the laws of God and the claims of humanity in the discipline of jails and prisons, 
and of that higher and wiser civilization worthy of our age and nation, which regards the reform 
of criminals as a means for the prevention of crime. 

Twelfth—The abolition of executive and legislative patronage, and the election of President. 
Vice-President, United States Senators, and of all civil officers, so far as practicable, by the direct 
vote of the people. 

Thirteenth—The practice of a friendly and liberal policy to immigrants from all nations, the 
guaranty to them of ample protection, and of equal rights and privileges. 

Fourteenth—The separation of the money of Government from all banking institutions. 
The National Government only should exercise the high prerogative of issuing paper money, and 
that should be subject to prompt redemption on demand, in gold and silver, the only equal stan¬ 
dards of value recognized by the civilized world. 

Fifteenth—The reduction of the salaries of public officers in a just ratio with the decline of 
wages and market prices, the abolition of sinecures, unnecessary offices, and official fees and 
perquisites ; the practice of strict economy in government expenses, and a free and thorough 
investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public trusts. 

The resolutions adopted by the Prohibition National Convention of 1872 
were read and reaffirmed by vote of the Convention. 


The Prohibition Party. 


33 


Nominations. 

The Convention voted to present the name of Hon. Green Clay Smith, of 
Kentucky, as their nominee for the Presidency, and Hon. G. T. Stewart, of 
Ohio, as their nominee for the Vice-Presidency. 

Hon. James Black introduced the following, which was unanimously adopt¬ 
ed: 


Resolved, That with shame and distress we have learned that the Centennial Commissioners 
have confirmed the grants of license or permits for the sale of intoxicating drinks within the 
Centennial grounds of the National Exposition, in the face of the law of Pennsylvania prohibiting 
the sale of intoxicating liquors within the park, of which it is a part, and in the face of the remon¬ 
strance of thousands of citizens. 

Resolved , In view of this action of the Centennial Commissioners we do protest, and do 
recommend all temperance and religious men of the nation to refuse to encourage the Exposition 
by their presence, unless the drink concessions he revoked and annulled. 

Resolved , That the Secretary send a copy of this protest to the Centennial Commissioners. 

Address to tlie People. 

Rev. John Russell, from the Committee on Platform, reported the following 
address to the people of the United States, which was unanimously adopted: 

The National Address of the Prohibition Reform Party for A.D. 1870, and in tiie 
Centennial Year of American Independence. 

Fellow-Citizens: The Prohibition Reform Party presents its second national ticket and 
platform of principles to the electors of the country, and respectfully solicits their suffrages. We 
boldly ask and confidently expect conscientious men to forsake their old political associations, 
and to share the toils and fortunes of our new patriotic enterprise. God and our country are call¬ 
ing free men to the rescue; and the impulses of religion, humanity, and patriotism will surely dic¬ 
tate a favorable response from those who mean to be true to the holy mission of human existence. 
To justify these assumptions let indisputable facts and the principles of a correct social philoso¬ 
phy be submitted to a candid public. 

No intelligent person will deny that intemperance in the use of alcoholic beverages is the most 
unmitigated and widely desolating bane of our times and country. Its sepulchral tones are to be 
heard day and night, and its skeleton fingers are hourly playing funeral dirges in the houses of our 
people in all parts of the land. Personal wretchedness, domestic infelicity, and social disorder, like 
a moral mildew, may be seen everywhere in the shadow of those places where liquors are manufac¬ 
tured and sold. Intemperance is the dry-rot of the body-politic, by which the vital forces and 
solid substances of the nation are being turned to poisonous dust by that fatal “ worm of the 
still.” Without presuming to be exact in our figures, probably 80,000,000 bushels of grain are an¬ 
nually destroyed by brewing and distillation, being thus notonly rendered worthless for food, but 
actually converted into poison to corrupt the physical and moral fountains of society. Not one 
dollar of real loecdth is restored to the nation as a compensation for this enormous waste / In 
some States one in thirteen of the entire population receive charitable aid, while seven-tenths of all 
this property is produced by the use of strong drink. The estimated annual mortality of the 
nation from intemperance is from sixty to one hundred thousand. To recruit this waste a cor¬ 
responding number of the youth of our country are enrolled by the dram-shops, so that a vast 
army of probably six hundred thousand confirmed inebriates is constantly maintained by the drink 
system, while to manage that system the labor of from four to five hundred thousand more per¬ 
sons is required; these, together with the vast sums of capital employed, are not only non-pro¬ 
ducers, but actual destroyers of wealth which might otherwise augment our national resources 
and bless with plenty the thousands of our wretched poor. It may be freely conceded that this 
gigantic evil is not wholly or primarily the result of bad legislation, neither can it be entirely and 
at once removed by governmental measures however correct in principle or faithfully applied. 
Nevertheless, religion and civil law should act in harmony; in either the neglect or malapplica- 
tion of one of these potential social forces the others necessarily operate at disadvantage. 
We therefore insist upon prohibitory law as the proper complement of moral means in efforts to 
remove intemperance as being the greatest curse and shame of our times and country. That 
the enactment and execution of such law is both political work and a question suited to form 
a sharply-defined issue between parties it seems to us superfluous to discuss. No person of 
ordinary intelligence can honestly deny it. 


34 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


OUR POSITIONS are: 

First—Tlic public traffic in alcoholic beverages is not only immoral in the highest degree, but 
is also the greatest political evil of the times. 

Second—That prohibitory law, faithfully enforced, is the true and only proper remedy for 
this political evil. That all other methods of legal treatment are false in principle and radically 
defective ; while some of them may temporarily embarrass the business, they do not seriously 
abate its force nor honestly contemplate its overthrow. 

Third—That, because of this radical difference in method of dealing with the question, 
other political parties being composed of thoroughly discordant elements in this respect, it is 
utterly impossible for either of them to cither practically or formally adopt our principles. 

Fourth—That under our system of government, through the agency of political parties, we 
are driven to the alternatives of either abandoning the policy of prohibition or of organizing 
separately for its accomplishment. 

Fifth—That logical consistency, therefore, necessitates the practical distinction between our 
fellow-citizens of supporters or opposers of the infamous liquor-trade, with all its direful con¬ 
comitants. Hence, though cherishing “ malice toward none, but with charity for all,” as indi¬ 
viduals, we are in truth compelled to brand as aiders and abettors of the dram-shop system all 
political organizations not clearly committed to the policy for which we have declared on this 
subject. 

Comparatively fortunate, indeed, should we regard the condition of affairs if none but bad 
men and their business were arrayed against us. But, unhappily, political prejudices and blind 
partisan zeal are not always confined to these. Through want of due consideration or lack of 
native independence, people of much moral worth often thoughtlessly ally themselves to public 
wrongs, and really constitute the most formidable obstruction to the progress of great reforma¬ 
tory movements. Good men may with propriety vote in the same party with bad ones when the 
party itself is clearly committed to righteous measures, because it is more consistent for bad peo¬ 
ple to do right than for good people to do wrong. But when no positive and definite good is pro¬ 
posed by the association, all virtue-loving citizens who intend to advance the public welfare will 
find it necessary, like the early Christian disciples, to go “ to their own company.” All expe¬ 
rience attests that when real reformatory issues have either been completed or are ignored by a 
party, the vicious elements within it soon obtain control of the organization, and use it in the 
main for selfish and unpatriotic purposes. And such is unmistakably the condition of the two 
great national parties of this country to-day! Moreover, the hope of reforming such demoral¬ 
ized organizations, or through any “ by hook or by crook ” method of promoting valuable politi¬ 
cal reforms through and by them, is anti-historic, unphilosophical, and hence illusory and vain. 
Yet we are not wholly ignorant of the many specious pleas by which well-meaning citizens are 
induced at the present time to continue their fidelity to one or the other of these effete parties. 

Republicans say that “ the good results of the late war have not yet been fully secured, and 
that the party which was loyal to the country in the hour of its peril should continue in power 
until all such valuable fruits have been gathered.” With due respect for the sincerity of some, it 
is, nevertheless, difficult to restrain contempt for the ill-concealed hypocritical gravity of the more 
knowing ones who put forth this claim. 

Let any thoughtful citizen name to himself the clearly-defined issues growing out of the late 
rebellion, and which now divide the Democratic and Republican parties, if he can. There are no 
such issues in existence, and many of those who thus play upon the prejudices and sympathies 
springing out of the sad memories of the past know right well that there are none. Many of the 
purest patriots and broadest statesmen of the nation, who helped to make and settle those issues, 
have time and again so declared. There are indeed questions which will require statesmen and 
philanthropists to dispose of, some of them arising out of the late civil war; but unfortunately 
neither of the two old dram-shop parties can manage the most important one of all. We think it 
must be admitted that intemperance presents a fearful peril to the colored population of this 
country. 

That four million of people so lately emancipated from the low condition of chattel slavery 
should be a comparatively easy prey to strong drink is a most natural supposition, and a fact 
which should excite the fears and engage the attention of those entrusted with the administra¬ 
tion of public affairs. Yet what administration journal or public functionary of the dominant 
party has even ventured to call attention to this patent and alarming fact ? They dare not do so 
for fear of frightening away those moral vampires, liquor-dealers, who have of late fastened 
themselves, as they always do, upon the party in power. When Congress is simply asked to 
order the appointment of a commission to investigate and report facts touching the manufac¬ 
ture, sale, and use of liquors in the country, the puerile and contemptuous treatment of the ques- 


The Prohibition Party. 


35 


tion 'before fhat body amounts to a deliberate insult to the petitioners and a disgrace to the civili¬ 
zation of the age. The dominant party is afraid to appoint such a commission lest it should of¬ 
fend and lose the support of the whiskey ring ; and Democrats, being in active competition with 
them for the same corrupt inlluence, are equally worthless and unreliable. 

Another plausible but extremely superficial plea urged equally by Democrats and Republi¬ 
cans is that, “ it being morally certain that one of the two great parties will elect in the ap¬ 
proaching national canvass, each and every citizen is supposed to have a choice as to whether 
Democratic or Republican principles are to rule in the councils of the nation during the next 
four years.” It is hence hastily inferred that each and all should remain within the ranks of 
one or the other of these political organizations. Of course, accepting this deduction continu¬ 
ously, there must be an end to all political reforms, except through the agency and by operating 
within the lines of the old parties. Such reasoning better becomes the literature of the ninth than 
the nineteenth century. But the proposition falsely assumes that these parties differ on funda¬ 
mental principles of government, which every intelligent American citizen aught to know is not 
true. Nor have they been able to formulate in their platforms, during the past eight years, an 
appreciable difference of policy even upon which they propose to administer the affairs of the 
government. 

There are principles and a theory of civil government upon which, happily, the people of 
this great Republic, in this our first centennial year, are quite well united, but they do not belong 
distinctively to any political party. It is a nan seguitur , therefore, to conclude that all must ra¬ 
tionally and necessarily have such a preference for one or the other of the old parties as to labor 
for its succession at the coming election. This idea of a “ choice of evils ” is a wicked heresy, 
alike in morals and in politics. We may, indeed, prefer to endure the lighter of two evils if we 
must be visited by one, but our duty is to labor incessantly to avert both or either as a calamity. 
It is a downright insult to common sense for these superannuated political organizations to be 
talking seriously of their principles at the present time. Judging from current political litera¬ 
ture, including Congressional debates, newspaper discussions, convention resolutions, whiskey 
ring disclosures, etc., the sum total of Democracy is to profess its own immaculate purity and 
point out peculation, fraud, and corruption in the Republican party ; while Republicans, unable 
to conceal their own shame, are profuse in promises to steal less in the future, boast loudly of 
the virtues of “ Father Abraham,” and vehemently accuse Democrats of the political sins of their 
forefathers. 

So far, therefore, from having any special care-as to whether Democrats or Republicans ad¬ 
minister the government during the next four years, the wise course for every one opposed to 
dram-shop rule is to vote a ticket which represents his own principles, and thereby help to ren¬ 
der it “morally certain ” that neither of them shall ever elect again, and even prevent such a 
misfortune at this time if possible. When otherwise sensible men and able journals resort to 
this kind of sophistry for the purpose of perpetuating party rule, it furnishes the most indubi¬ 
table evidence that the time has fully come for dissolving old political associations and form¬ 
ing new and better ones. 

But they say, “ We are only throwing away our votes upon candidates whom we have no 
expectation of electing.” This stale and flimsy objection ought to have made its authors 
ashamed to repeat it before this time. But addle-pated party whippers-in use it perpetually, 
and perhaps to better advantage than any other piece of their extremely “light artillery.” The 
popular faith, be it sound or senseless, finds it easy to make converts, and all dissenters are 
doomed to be sneered at as heretics and schismatics. Meanwhile, it is not easy to command 
the faith or the philosophy to trust, labor, and wait for results to justify the practical wisdom 
of separate organization for reformatory effort. Nevertheless, the track of social progress is 
full of such marks, and the pages of history are all aglow with eulogy on names which in their 
day and generation were regarded as synonyms of madness or folly. Suppose we do not ex¬ 
pect to elect the present set of candidates of a recently organized political party committed to 
a great and much-needed reform? Would that prove it unwise to vote for them ? Do modern 
Republicans think it was unwise for Messrs. Sumner, Wilson, Giddings, Chase, and other 
honored names to vote for Van Buren and Adams in 1848, for Hale and Julian in 1852, or for 
Fremont and Dayton in 1856? None of these men were elected; nor would Abraham Lincoln 
have been elected in 1860 but far the party organization , discipline , and popularity which were 
begotten of these previous years of hard toil and hotly-contested campaigns ! An able waiter, in 
criticising this Prohibition Party movement at its very inception in 1869, said: “Parties are not 
made; they grow.” Precisely so, we replied; then they must first be planted and given the 
other necessary conditions of growth. A wise orchardist does not expect a standard tree to bear 
fruit immediately after planting; time and culture must first intervene. Be it remembered, 
then, that an American citizen never throw T s away his vote when he makes it to represent his 


30 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


principles and honest political convictions, but failing in this, he throws away his manhood 
also! 

The often-repeated objection to prohibitory laws, iterated by time-serving partisans, and 
reiterated by better people, who too often talk without much previous thought, that “such 
laws are impracticable without a public sentiment to sustain them,” deserves a passing no¬ 
tice. This mere truism, as it is usually employed against our party and its chief issue, amouuts 
to a solecism of the most ridiculous nature. If by “public sentiment” it is meant that the 
people must first be nearly or quite unanimous in favor of prohibiting the liquor-traffic, then a 
previous condition is required which supersedes the necessity of such legislation at all, and at 
once surrenders the whole question of law and political action. But if it be only intended to 
affirm that a clear majority of the electors of the country shall first become favorable to such 
legislation, then it does not follow that without a further important qualification of the propo¬ 
sition that a prohibitory law can even then be enforced. In numerous instances, by non¬ 
partisan test votes, the people have declared by heavy majorities in favor of prohibitory 
statutes, and yet these laws have been repealed because they were declared to be inoperative 
for the reason that public sentiment did not sustain them. Public sentiment for such pur¬ 
poses must be properly organized, and if not so consolidated it is powerless. Suppose the en¬ 
tire non-voting sentiment of the country to be in favor of prohibition, and an undoubted ma¬ 
jority of the legal voters also. But two-thirds of the Prohibitionists are in one of the two old 
parties, and one-third in the other. Now, of course, the enemies of prohibition will be dis¬ 
tributed between the two parties in relative proportion. If, therefore, the liquor-favoring 
minority shall remain loyal to their respective parties, except when an attempt is made to 
render prohibition effective, but in that case will cross and recross these party lines at plea¬ 
sure for the protection of the liquor business, is it not manifest that this minority, so dis¬ 
tributed, can control both parties in their interests ? And is it not clear that they have so 
acted in Massachusetts, Michigan, and other States of the Union ? The proper statement of 
the question, therefore, is, “ Prohibitory laws are impracticable without a properly organized 
public sentiment to sustain them,” and that proper organization is a united political party. 

The Convention adjourned sine die. 

National Prohibition Conference of 1 S77. 

At the request of friends of the cause of Prohibition the following Na¬ 
tional Prohibition Conference call was issued : 

To the Prohibitionists, Local-optionists , and other Friends of Legislative Suppression of the 



Liquor- Traffic : 


Friends of Prohibition in several States of the Union, believing that the present is an oppor¬ 
tune time for the holding of a National Conference of men and women who are earnestly labor¬ 
ing for the legal suppression of the importation, manufacture, and sale of intoxicating beverages, 
ve requested the undersigned to issue a call for such conference. 



, Recognizing that there are many persons favorable to the policy of prohibition as a protective 
measure essential to the well-being of the state, and heartily opposed to the legalized liquor- 
trade, who have been laboring to attain this end by methods more or less conflicting, inducing 
division where harmony and union are imperatively demanded; therefore, it has become im¬ 
portant that a conference should be held, by which differing views of method may be considered 
and possibly harmonized. The opponents of prohibition are a unit, and wield a political trade 
power which lias heretofore defeated or neutralized all legislative efforts to change the policy of 
the State and National Government from license to prohibition. 

The absolute need of prohibitive legislation was never more positive and apparent. The 
prosperity of the nation is paralyzed, the peace of the streets endangered, the harmony of social 
order disturbed, the torch of the drunken incendiary is lighted, the substance of the sober and 
industrious wasted, and the perpetuity of the government by the people jeopardized by the liquor- 
traffic, which Senator Morrill, in the United States Senate, characterized as the “gigantic crime 


of crimes.” 


Experience demonstrates that the great practical temperance work of the day is with the 
liquor-traffic, and our prominent weakness is our lack of efficient organization and deficient, 
unreliable financial support. 

Therefore, in response to this request and for the reasons stated and the purposes herein 
specified, and by the authority and in behalf of the National Committee of the Prohibition Re¬ 
form Party, I cordially invite all men and women who believe the license liquor system to be 


The Prohibition Party. 


37 


immoral, unwise, and impracticable for good, and will earnestly labor for a constitutional and 
lawful change of the policy of the State and nation on this question, to meet in conference in 
the city of New York, on Wednesday, the 26th day of September, 1877, at 11 a.m., at Perry Street 
M. E. Church, to continue during two days, to deliberate upon and adopt a declaration of Prohi¬ 
bition principles, and the best methods-of securing political organization and the financial sup¬ 
port neeessary to attain the suppression of the liquor-traffic, as the policy of the Federal Govern¬ 
ment and the several States. 

Written papers upon special topics of the Prohibition question will be solicited, from persons 
competent and interested, to be read, and the thoughts discussed before the Convention. 

Let us come together, and by the aid of the Divine Spirit determine upon some plan for secur¬ 
ing the hearty and consistent co-operation of all persons who recognize the necessity for meeting 
and overcoming “ the curse of Christendom.” 

JAMES BLACK, 

Chairman- of Nat'l Com. Pro. Eef. Party. 

PROGRAMME OF TOPICS. 

CONSTITUTION AC TOPICS. 

No. 1. Does the Constitution of the United States permit Congress, to prohibit the importa¬ 
tion, manufacture, and sale of intoxicating beverages ? If restricted, wherein, and to what ex¬ 
tent ? If not restricted, what should be the relation of the National Government to the drink- 
traffic. 

No. 2. Are State prohibitory laws compatible with the Constitution of the United States ? 

No. 3. Is prohibition compatible with civil government or violative of personal liberty ? 

No. 4. Is prohibition a right governmental policyand, if so, what is the responsibility of the 
citizen in relation thereto 2 


POLITICAL. 

No. 5. Is the importation, manufacture, and sale of intoxicating liquors a legitimate branch 
of commerce, or a proper source for national or State taxation for revenue ? 

No. b. Is moral suasion a sufficient means for securing the enactment and execution of pro¬ 
hibitory laws ? 

No. 7. Why mast law supplement moral suasion in securing the suppression of the liquor- 
traffic ? 

No. 8. Are civil-damage laws ; {so-callcd) right and consistent legislation where the licensed 
traffic exists ? 

No. 9. Is local-option or permissive legislation a proper and reliable agency for the sup¬ 
pression of the liquor-traffic ? 

No. 10. Is it probable that the Democratic and Republican parties, or either of them, can or 
will become a reliable agency for the enactment and execution of prohibitory law ? 

No. 11. Is a Prohibition Party a feasible and reliable.agency for securing the enactment and 
execution of prohibitory laws.? 

HISTORICAL. 

No. 12. What is the history and the value to the temperance movement,: and the cause for 
the repeal, of the gallon and local option laws in the New England and other States enacted 
prior to 1851 ? 

No. 13. When and by which party were the several State prohibitory laws enacted and re¬ 
enacted, and by which party modified and repealed ? 

No. 14. What laws pertaining to the liquor-traffic have been enacted by the Congress of the 
United States, when enacted, and were any prohibitory, and to whom applied ? 

MORAL. 

No. 15. Should total abstinence from the use, or the hiring oruse of property .for the manu¬ 
facture or sale, of alcoholic liquors be made a rule of church membership ? 

No. 16. Should not Prohibitionists give their financial support to efforts for the suppression 
of the liquor-traffic, even at the expense of lessening their aid for the church and church benevo¬ 
lences ? 

No. 17. What is the cause for the prevailing apathy of the church and people towards the 
liquor-traffic, and what is the remedy for overcoming it ? 

No. 18. Does the liquor-trade corrupt the administration of justice, our politics, and our le¬ 
gislation ; and if so, how, and to what extent ’ 


38 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


MISCELLANEOUS. 

No. 19. How can an adequate financial support be secured for the prosecution of prohibi¬ 
tion work ? 

No. 20. What can rightfully be done in our common schools and colleges to educate our 
youth in the principles of law underlying prohibitory legislation ? 

No. 21. Shall women be invited to a full participation in prohibition conventions ? 

No. 22. Why should not those favoring woman suffrage actively sustain the prohibition 
movement ? 

No. 23. Should participation in the prohibition movement be confined to total abstainers ? 

No. 24. Should the discussion of prohibition measures and nominees be considered a viola¬ 
tion of fundamental law of the Sons of Temperance, Good Templars, or other order which re¬ 
cognizes prohibition as one of the objects of its organization ? 

A number of the papers read at this conference were published, and are 
valuable contributions to the cause. 

Organization of tlie National Prohibition Alliance. 

During the National Prohibition Conference the National Prohibition Alli¬ 
ance was organized, with the following Declaration of Principles and Objects: 

1. That it is neither right nor politic for the State to afford legal protection and sanction to 
any traffic or system that tends to increase crime, to waste the national resources, to swell 
taxation, to corrupt the social habits, and to destroy the health and lives of the people. 

2. That the traffic in intoxicating liquors, as common beverages, is such traffic; and is 
inimical t.o the true interests of individuals, and destructive to the order and welfare of society, 
and ought, therefore, to be prohibited. 

3. That the history and results of all past legislation in regard to the liquor-traffic abun¬ 
dantly prove that it is impossible satisfactorily to limit or regulate a system so essentially mis¬ 
chievous in its tendencies. 

4. That no consideration of private gain or public revenue can justify the upholding of a 
system so utterly wrong in principle, suicidal in policy, and disastrous in results, as the traffic 
in intoxicating liquors. 

5. That the legislative prohibition of the liquor-traffic is perfectly compatible with rational 
liberty, and with all the claims of justice and legitimate commerce. 

6. That the legislative suppression of the liquor-traffic would be highly conducive to a pro¬ 
gressive civilization. 

7. That, rising above class, sectarian, or party considerations, all good citizens should 
combine to procure an enactment prohibiting the sale of intoxicating beverages, as affording 
most efficient aid in removing the appalling evil of intemperance. 

8. That, recognizing the truth of these principles, we pledge ourselves to vote at all times 
only for such candidates for all political offices who are distinctly nominated as favoring these 
principles, and who will labor for the enactment and execution of prohibitory laws. 

OBJECTS. 

1. The objects of the Alliance shall be to thoroughly educate the people of the whole coun¬ 
try upon the errors and enormities of the license system; to advocate persistently the legal 
suppression of the liquor-traffic; to rouse the people to use the ballot constantly to aid in se¬ 
curing prohibitory legislation; to inculcate the duty upon all good citizens to vote under all 
circumstances only for men known to be in favor of prohibition; to unite the friends of the 
cause in one organization, national as well as local; to publish and distribute prohibition lite¬ 
rature; to send out speakers and lecturers of known ability only to advocate the cause of 
prohibition; to afford aid in the various local, State, and national campaigns against the 
license system; to provide through the Lecture Bureau a corps of competent speakers ready 
to answer calls for service from every section of the country; to make a complete enrollment 
of all the friends of prohibition in the whole country; and generally to do whatever may be 
necessary to secure the repeal of all license laws and the enactment of prohibitory laws in 
every State and Territory in the Union. 

2. This Alliance shall not undertake to form any temperance societies, but will confine 
itself strictly to the legal and constitutional feature of the temperance work, and permit the 
advocacy of the duty of total abstinence for the individual, as well as the medical, religious, 
social, and moral features of the cause, to be continued by the various temperance societies, of 
varied character and names, already organized. 


39 


The Prohibition Party . 

Officers. 

The following officers were elected: 

President —Rev. H. A. Thompson, D.D. 

Acting Secretary —Luther S. Kauffman. 

Treasurer —Stephen M erritt. 

Associate Secretary— Mrs. M. McClellan Brown. 

The foregoing furnishes, to a limited degree, data showing the rise and de¬ 
velopment of prohibition thought, of prohibitive legislation, and of the causes 
which led to the formation of the Prohibition Party, with its progress to the 
holding of its fourth National Convention at Cleveland, Ohio, June 17, 1880. 
at which General Neal Dow, of Maine, and Rev. H. A. Thompson, D.D., of 
Ohio, were nominated for President and Vice-President. 

The progress of the movement in the several States may become of suffi¬ 
cient interest to justify the collation and publication of data which present 
means and limited space now forbid. 


APPENDIX A. 

Prohibitory Laws-Thcir Enactment and Repeal. 

The following notes were a part of the letter of James Black to Rev. T. J. 
Bissell, chairman of the New York State Prohibition Party Committee, and fol¬ 
lowed the table of the enactment of prohibitory laws given on page 3. The 
facts stated in these notes at the date of writing (August 23, 1875,) were cor¬ 
rect. Many changes, however, have been made since, all in favor of license 
and not of prohibition, which may be collated and published in a subsequent 
edition of this document : 


Notes. 

Maine has the honor of being the first Christian commonwealth to prohibit the traffic in 
intoxicating drinks, having enacted a law in 1846 forbidding sales for such purpose, with or¬ 
dinary fines as penalty. Experience having demonstrated that rum-sellers were not deterred 
by fines whilst their stock of liquors were left to them undisturbed, Gen. Neal Dow drafted 
and persistently urged before the people and Legislature a law now known as the “ Maine 
Law,’’ containing seizure and destruction of liquors illegally held for sale, with fines and 
imprisonment for illegal manufacturers and sellers. This law was enacted, as stated above, in 
1851 by a vote of more than two to one, and v r as repealed in 1856, and stringent license sub¬ 
stituted (Morrill, Republican Governor, Legislature Democratic). Two years of experience 
was sufficient to show the contrasts in effects upon crime, pauperism, and public peace be¬ 
tween the “ license ” and prohibitory policy; and in 1858 (Morrill, Republican Governor, 
Legislature Republican) the prohibitory law was re-enacted, submitted to the people, and 
ratified by a majority vote of twenty-two thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, and has re¬ 
mained since that date. 

Delaware has the honor of being the second State to place a prohibitory liquor law, in 1847, 
upon her statute-book, which was submitted to and ratified by the people the same year, but 
declared unconstitutional in 1848 by the Supreme Court, because of such submission. The 
law was re-enacted in 1855 as stated in table. 

Rhode Island.— The law of 1852, declared unconstitutional by Judge Curtis of the United 
States Court in 1853, was amended in 1853 (Allen, Democrat, Governor, and Legislature Demo¬ 
cratic). The law, ratified by a direct vote of the people, remained until 1863. when it was repeal¬ 
ed under Sprague, Union Republican, Governor, and Legislature Union Republican, and li¬ 
cense substituted. In 1865 local option to town councils and boards of aldermen to grant 
or refuse license was passed (Smith, Republican, Governor Legislature Republican. In 1874 the 
license clause was repealed, and prohibition re-enacted (Howard, Republican, Governor, with 
Legislature Republican). In June, 1875, the prohibitory clause was again repealed under 



40 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


Lippet, Republican, Governor, and Legislature Republican, although at the election in April 
1875, the highest vote for the three candidates for Governor was given to the Prohibition 
candidate. The Legislature elected the present Governor by the union of liquor Republicans 
and Democrats. 

Massachusetts. —The law of 1852 was declared unconstitutional in 1853. A new law was 
passed in 1855, Gardner, American, being Governor, with a Legislature American, and remained 
until 1808, when repealed and license substituted (Bullock, Republican, Governor, Legislature 
Republican), but was again restored in 1869, excepting cider (Claflin, Republican, Governor, 
Legislature Republican). In 1870 the law was further opened so as to allow “ the free sale of 
lager-beer, ale, porter, and strong beer in every town of the State in which the citizens did not 
vote to prohibit it ” (Claflin, Republican, Governor, with Legislature Republican). In 1871 the law 
was again changed “so that malt liquors could not be sold in towns without a vote in favor of 
it,” cider still exempt (Republican Governor, Legislature Republican). In 1873 the “beer 
clause ” was repealed, thus restoring prohibition of sale of both “ malt ” and “ spirituous ” liquors; 
but in allowing apothecaries to sell the prohibitory law of 1855 and 1857 is not restored in its full 
integrity (Washburn, Republican, Governor, Legislature Republican). In 1875 the prohibitory 
clause of the law was again repealed and license substituted (Gaston, Democrat, Governor, Legis¬ 
lature Republican). 

Vermont. —The law of 1852 remains. 

Michigan. —In 1859 the people of Michigan made prohibition of the liquor-traffic a constitu¬ 
tional provision. Article 4, Section 47, of her State Constitution says: “ The Legislature shall not 
pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or other intoxicating 
liquor.” This was one year before the Maine law. The prohibitory law of 1853 was ratified by 
the people by nineteen thousand and thirty majority. The act of submission was declared un¬ 
constitutional in 1854 by an equally divided court. The law was re-enacted in 1855 (Bingham, 
Republican, Governor, Legislature Republican) and has been changed seven times—three times 
in the interest of temperance, and four times in the interest of the traffic. In 1875 the prohibitory 
law was repealed and a tax law substituted (Bagley Republican, Governor, Legislature Repub¬ 
lican). 

Connecticut. —The law of 1854 was repealed in 1872 (Jewell, Republican, Governor, and 
Legislature Republican). 

Indiana.— In 1853 a prohibitory law was passed (Wright, Whig Governor, Legislature 
Whig) submitted to and ratified by the people, but the Supreme Court decided it unconstitu¬ 
tional because of the submission. In 1855 the law was again enacted as stated above, upon the 
constitutionality of which the Court was equally divided, and the law again fell. 

Iowa.— The law of 1855, with modifications removing the prohibition of fermented drinks, 
remains, retaining its “ no-license ” features. The German beer-sellers through party aid are en¬ 
deavoring to secure its repeal. 

New York. — The law of 1855 was in 1856 declared unconstitutional, and fell. 

New Hampshire.—T he law still remains. 

Illinois.— The law of 1855 failed of approval by the people by one thousand four hundred 
and six votes. 

From the table it will be noticed that no prohibitory law has been enacted since 1855, and 
that not in a single State or Territory has the Republican party enacted such law, though loudly 
claimed by its partisans to be the special friend of prohibition. The claim is without support. 
Investigation of its history on this question will show that by platform declaration in 1872, in 
favor of taxing rum and tobacco, and against Sunday and temperance laws, as well as by repeated 
acts in the States and by sentiments expressed by leading papers, some of which are collated in 
the Living Issue of August 19, 1875, the Republican party is fixedly hostile to the prohibition 
policy. 

Although five of the States named in the foregoing table have had their prohibitory laws 
passed by Democratic Legislatures and administrations, it must not be inferred that the Demo¬ 
cratic party would now as then favor prohibition, or that that party is more favorable than the 
Republican. The fact is both are hostile and hate Prohibitionists more than they do each other, 
and will on this question, as in Rhode Island, throw old party hate aside and unite against Pro¬ 
hibitionists. The Democratic party is the avowed friend of license; the Republican is equally 
such, though not so pronounced. The Republican party has had control of most of the States 
for fifteen or more years, and must be held responsible for failure to enact or execute, as well as 
for the repeal of the laws she found upon attaining power, but which have been generally weak- 


The Prohibition Party. 


41 


ened or removed. We cannot rely upon either the Republican or Democratic party to remove or 
aid to remove the curse of the rum-traffic, but must organize independently as an educator, and, 
trusting in God and the right, light on until in the good time coming. 

APPENDIX B. 

Beer Politics. 

At the seventh Beer Brewers’ Congress, held in Chicago, June 5, 1867, 
these resolutions were adopted : 

“ W hereas, The action and influence of the temperance party is in direct opposition to the 
principles of individual freedom and political equality upon which our American Union is 
founded ; therefore, 

“Resolved, That we will use all means to stay the progress of this fanatical party, and to 
secure our individual rights as citizens, and that we will sustain no candidate, of whatever 
party, in any election, who is in any way disposed toward the total abstinence cause.” 

This was more than two years before the Prohibition Reform Party was 
organized, and the temperance party here referred to was that composed of 
all temperance voters who carried their principles into the elections. 

On the 16th day of August, 1867, the Germans of Chicago held a mass¬ 
meeting in Crosby’s Opera-House, at which, after the passage of resolutions 
denouncing Sunday and temperance laws, they adopted this pledge of politi¬ 
cal action : 

“ Resolved, That we firmly stand as one man by these declarations, and that no party con¬ 
siderations shall lead us to endorse a platform or vote for a man whose course will be in the 
least doubtful on these cardinal points ; and we hope and believe in case such should not be 
inscribed on the banner of either of the present political parties, that a new party of freedom 
will arise, to which v r e will join ourselves, and which will take up the question of personal 
liberty, so nobly vindicated by the abolition of slavery, and that will not send us back into a 
darkness and thralldom of soul more abject than that of the body.” 

At the eighth Beer Brewers’ Congress, held in Buffalo, July 8, 1868, this 
resolution was adopted : 

“ Resolved , That we will continue in the future, as we have in the past, to battle for the 
promotion of the cause of civil and religious liberty throughout the United States, that we will 
use all honorable means to deprive the political and puritanical temperance men of the power 
they have so long exercised in the councils of the political parties in this country, and that, for 
that purpose, we will support no candidate for any office who is identified w r ith this illiberal 
and narrow-minded element.” 

At the ninth Beer Brewers’ Congress, held in Newark, X. J., June 2, 
1869, this last resolution was “reiterated and reaffirmed ” as its “standing 
creed and unchangeable purpose ” ; and at the tenth Beer Brewers’ Congress, 
held in Davenport, Iowa, June 20, 1870, it was again reiterated and affirmed ; 
and also by the eleventh Beer Brewers’ Congress, held in Pittsburgh, June 7, 
1871, by which this resolution was added to its declaration of sentiments : 

“ Resolved , That all candidates for public office, of whatever political party, who accept 
these views as expressed and reiterated in these resolutions, and pledge themselves to adopt 
them for their rule of official action, whenever and wherever applicable, are hereby recom¬ 
mended to our members and their earnest support, and such candidates may firmly rely upon it.” 

At the thirteenth Beer Brewers’ Congress, held in Cleveland, June 4, 1873, 
this resolution was adopted : 

“ Resolved, That the officers of each local association represented in this Congress are 
hereby requested to place themselves in correspondence with the leaders of political parties 
in their respective States, and make use of all legitimate measures to procure the nomination 
and election of one or more members of the Legislature in each State in the Union, who will 


42 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


make it his or their especial business to look after the interest of the brewers in whatever 
form of legislation their interest may be affected ; and in ail such States or counties where 
the present political parties refuse or neglect to recognize the interest of brewers, that asso¬ 
ciations are requested to run candidates, irrespective of any political consideration, who will 
protect their interests.” 

At the fifteenth Beer Brewers’ Congress, held in Cincinnati, June 2, 1875, 
these resolutions were adopted : 

“ Resolved, That where restrictive and prohibitory enactments exist, every possible mea¬ 
sure be taken to oppose, resist, and repeal them ; and it is further 

“ Resolved, That politicians favoring prohibitory enactments, who offer themselves as can¬ 
didates for office, be everywhere strenuously opposed, and more so if it be found that their per¬ 
sonal habits do not conform with their public professions." 

Under this rule every politician must be in the habit of drinking liquor, or 
he must be “strenuously opposed” as a candidate for office. 

At the sixteenth Beer Brewers’ Congress, held in Philadelphia, June 7, 

1876, this resolution was adopted : 

“ Resolved, That by every lawful means, those who espouse the cause of teetotalism, 
whether for political influence or personal aggrandizement, be opposed to the uttermost.” 

At the seventeenth Beer Brewers’ Congress, held in Milwaukee, June 6, 

1877, this resolution was adopted : 

“ Resolved, That all persons seeking appointment for public offices who are known ene¬ 
mies to our trade, or who seek the support of the so-called temperance party, be earnestly op¬ 
posed, irrespective of their political creeds." 

At the eighteenth Beer Brewers’ Congress, held in Baltimore, June 5, 1878, 
this resolution was adopted : 

“ Resolved , That such influence as the trade can honestly exercise at the polls be used in 
the election of independent representatives, who will conscientiously maintain their opinions, 
ii'respective of partisan influence or political jobbery.” 

At the nineteenth Annual Brewers’ Convention, held in St. Louis, Mo., 
June 4 and 5, 1879. The following is found in the body of resolutions adopt¬ 
ed : 

“ Resolved, That the members of this Association use every means in their power, espe¬ 
cially by the support of proper candidates for representatives only, to secure a just discrimi¬ 
nation between distilled and fermented liquors in the legislative enactments of their respec¬ 
tive States.” 

And in the Brewers’ Convention held in Buffalo, N. Y., June 2 and 3, 
1880 : 

“ Resolved, That we recognize as one of the means in our power the support of candidates 
for the various legislative bodies of this country who are opposed to the enactment of sump¬ 
tuary laws, such as temperance reformers are striving to place upon the statute books.” 

“ What do you care about whether the negroes ride in first-class cars and are permitted to 
vote as often as they please in Louisiana, if you have to close up your breweries and be deprived 
at one blow of your hard-earned property of a whole life’s struggle ?” 

“ Support that party which supports you, and go against that which wants to destroy you.” 

“ No, gentlemen ; first personal and then political liberty ; first beer and then politics.” 

Such was the language of Louis Schade, the salaried attorney of the 
brewers at Washington, D. C., at their fifteenth Annual Congress. At the 
same congress Dr. H. H. Reuter, President of the United States Brewers’ 
Association, said : 

“ But as good citizens, whatever our political professions, we must hold to strict accounta- 


The Prohibition Party . 


43 


bility a great political party, if by its influence, or connivance through its organization and party 
machinery, tyrannical and unjust temperance laws are burdened upon the people, or retained 
upon the statute-books through State legislation.” 

These enunciations of policy, effectively and consistently acted upon, 
show the whole reason why liquor rules the ballot, and with the ballot rules 
both State and nation. 

No wonder that with such declarations of their purpose from year to year 
thundered into the ears of political parties and their leaders, backed by a vast 
voting force of a million drinkers, and with such puerile utterances, on the 
other hand, from Christian voters, the temperance cause has been found so 
weak in Congress and State Legislatures. How very different are the voices and 
acts of the liquor criminals in their meetings and at the polls from the great 
majority of Christian temperance men! We do not hear the beer brewers or 
any of the liquor associations declaring that “ as the movement embraces per¬ 
sons of all religious creeds and political faiths , we deem it not expedient to 
affiliate with any sect or party as against another They everywhere, and at 
all times, boldly and positively assert the contrary—that they will affiliate 
with those politicians and parties only who subserve their interests, and will 
oppose to the utmost all who are not openly indentified with them and their 
cause, in the government and at the ballot-box. 

Subjection of Political Parties to the Liquor Interest. 

Under the fostering care of the United States internal revenue system, 
made necessary by the expenditures of the war of the Rebellion and protec¬ 
tion of the national debt, the brewing interest, largely increased in numbers 
and wealth, organized for the security of their trade, against the efforts of the 
temperance sentiment of the country. They brought the pressure of their 
numbers, wealth, and organization to bear upon the leaders of the Republi¬ 
can and Democratic parties, and demanded as a price of their support, not 
only unconditional submission to their dictum, but also party platform decla¬ 
ration and action against prohibitive legislation. The Republican party, in 
order to obtain and retain the “ German vote,” was the first party in the his¬ 
tory of our country to yield to these demands of the brewers and as a party to 
array themselves against “all temperance and Sunday laws.” In their Na¬ 
tional Convention held in Philadelphia in June, 1872, in the sixteenth resolu¬ 
tion of their platform the unconditional surrender of this party to these de¬ 
mands is recorded as follows: 

“ The Republican party propose to respect the rights reserved by the people to themselves as 
carefully as the powers delegated by them to the State and to the Federal Government. It dis¬ 
approves of a resort to unconstitutional* laws for the purpose of removing evils be interference 
with rights not surrendered by the people to either State or National Governments.” 

Though the language is somewhat ambiguous, it was clear to wide-awake 
temperance people that it was a bid for the whiskey and beer-drinking and 
Sabbath-desecrating vote of the country. To remove all doubt regarding the 
true meaning of this resolution, J. M. Miller, Esq., of Portsmouth, Michigan, 

* “ Unconstitutional laws.”—The brewers and beer-sellers, in speaking of prohibitive en¬ 
actments, constantly apply the term “ unconstitutional ” to such laws, although the Supreme 
Court of the United States, and all the higher courts of the several States before whom the ques¬ 
tion has been brought, have without exception decided the right of the State to prohibit the 
manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks. [See Appendix “ D.”] 


44 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


conceived the idea of frankly interrogating its reputed author, Mr. Herman 
Raster, editor-in-chief of the Illinois Staats-Zeitung, the leading German Re¬ 
publican newspaper in the Northwest. The following is 

MR. MILLER'S LETTER t 

“ Portsmouth, Mich., July 8, 1872. 

“ Mr. Raster—Dear Sir: You are credited with the authorship of the sixteenth resolution 
of the Philadelphia platform; and as there is some difference of opinion in reference to what 
evils arc alluded to, if you would condescend to write me a line in explanation, it may serve the 
cause of truth and free government. Yours, etc., 

“ J. M. Miller.” 

To which Mr. Raster replied : 

Chicago, III., July 10,1872. 

“ J. M. Miller—Dear Sir: In reply to yours of July 8,1 have to say that I have written the 
sixteenth resolution of the Philadelphia platform, and that it was adopted by the Platform Com¬ 
mittee with the full and explicit understanding that its purpose was the discountenancing of all 
so-called temperance (prohibitory) and Sunday laws. This purpose was meant to be expressed 
by reference to those rights of the people which had not been delegated to either national or 
State governments; it being assumed that the right to drink what one pleases (being responsi¬ 
ble for the acts committed under the influence of strong drink) and the right to look upon the 
day on which Christians have their prayer-meetings as any other day, were among the rights not 
delegated by the people, but reserved to themselves. Whether this explanation of the meaning of 
the resolution will satisfy you or not I do not know. But as you want to serve the cause of 
truth, so do I; and what I have stated here in regard to the * true meaning and intent 1 of the 
sixteenth resolution of the Philadelphia platform is the truth. 

“ Very respectfully yours, 

“Herman Raster.” 

The “ Platform Committee ” referred to was composed of forty-two mem¬ 
bers from the delegations representing the States and Territories in the con¬ 
vention, not one of whom has ever publicly denied Mr. Raster’s affirmation of 
the meaning and purpose of the committee in reporting this resolution, nor 
has any Republican journal ever denied the interpretation and intent of it. 

As farther confirmative of the fact that such was the purpose of the resolu¬ 
tion the following extract from an address of A. C. Hesing, a prominent Ger¬ 
man Republican of Chicago, before the Illinois Republican Central Committee 
is submitted : 

“ Let me read another paragraph of the Philadelphia platform, a paragraph which was also 
written by Mr. Raster, and then let me show how the party has lived up to it. Here it is ; listen 
now, gentlemen, to the sixteenth paragraph of the platform. . . . 

“ During the campaign Mr. Raster, who was the author of that paragraph, received bushels 
of letters asking him to denounce the men who construed it as referring to the use of liquors, 
and he refused to do so.” 

The political journals and politicians of the country studiously avoid hav¬ 
ing anything to say regarding this important correspondence, because it is like 
McFingal’s gun, that 

“ Whether aimed at duck or plover, 

Recoiled, and kicked the owner over.” 

If they endorse and give prominence to Mr. Raster’s interpretation of the 
sixteenth resolution, they drive temperance people out of the party ; if they 
deny the truth of Mr. Raster’s statement—a thing they cannot well do—they 
drive Germans and saloonists out of their ranks. 

The opposition to prohibition and local option laws, and the modification 
and repeal of such laws in States under the control of the Republican Party, is 
the legitimate fruit of the party policy on this question adopted at Philadel¬ 
phia and remaining unchanged to this day. 


The Prohibition Parly. 


45 


The Democratic party, following the lead of the Republican, in 187G at St. 
Louis, and again in 1880 at Cincinnati, adopted the same party policy by a 
declaration of opposition to “ sumptuary laws,” by which term they include 
ail laws prohibitive of rum-selling. The two parties are therefore indentical 
in policy and purpose on the liquor question, and it is folly to expect prohibi¬ 
tion through the action of parties so thoroughly committed to the protection of 
the liquor interest. 


APPENDIX C. 

Prohibition Party Action, 

The Temperance men of Ohio, in 1SG9, nominated the first distinct Prohibi¬ 
tion ticket. The records show that G79 votes were cast for it. 

The Prohibition vote, from 1870 to 1879 inclusive, in the several States, as 
officially reported, is given in the tables hereunto appended : 


1870. 


Illinois. 

Massachusetts. 

Michigan. 

New Hampshire.... 


. 3,712 

.7,000 

.2,710 

.1,167 

Ohio. 

Total. 


...... 17,401 



1871. 



Massachusetts. 

Michigan. 

Minnesota. 

New Hampshire.... 


.6,598 

.2,017 

. 846 

. 396 

Ohio. 

Pennsylvania. 

Total.... 





1872. 



Connecticut. 

Michigan. 

Ne.v Hampshire_ 

Nev York. 

State. 
... 1,549 

.... 478 

Presidential. 

205 

1,272 

200 

201 

Ohio. 

Pennsylvania. 

State. 

Presidential. 

2,100 

1,630 

Total. 

.... 6,739 

5,508 



1873. 





. 2,541 

Ohio ... . 





. 1,050 

Rhode Island. 



New Hampshire.... 
New York. 


. 1,779 

. 3,272 

Total. 




1874. 




. 4,960 

New York. 


. 11,768 



. 681 

Ohio. 





. 2.277 

Pennsylvania. 


. 4,632 


Rhode Island. 


. 6,512 

••••••••• 

Nebraska . 


. 1,346 



— 

New Hampshire. 


. 2,097 

Total. 





1875. 



California. 



New York. 


. 11,103 

Connecticut. 


. 2,942 

Ohio.. 



Illinois. 



Pennsylvania. 


. 13.244 

Iowa. 


. 1.000 

Rhode" Island. 


. 8,724 

Massachusetts. 


. 9.124 

Wisconsin. 



Minnesota. 


. 1,669 




New Hampshire. 


. 773 

Total. 





1876. 




State. 

Presidential. 


State. 

Presidential. 

Connecticut. 

740 

378 

Nebraska. 


1,599 

Delaware. 

236 

— 

New Hampshire.... 

425 

— 

Illinois. 

— 

141 

New Jersey. 


43 

Town. 

_ 

36 

New York. 

... 3,412 

2,359 

Kansas. 

393 

110 

Ohio. 

... 1,863 

1,636 

Kentucky... 

— 

818 

Pennsylvania...... 


1,319 

Maryland. 

— 

10 

Rhode Island. 

... 6,733 

68 

Massachusetts. 

. 12,274 

84 

Wisconsin. 

460 

153 

Michigan.. . 

874 

767 



— 

Minnesota. 


172 

Total. 

... 26,014 

9,757 

Missouri . 


64 






















































































46 


Brief History of Prohibition and of 


1877 . 


Iowa. 


Pennsylvania 

Massachusetts.. 


Rhode Island. 

New Jersey. 



New York. 


Total, 

Ohio. 

. 4,836 



1878 . 

f!nnnflf>t.ic.nt r .. 

. 1,079 

Ohio. 

Illinois. 

. 2,228 

Pennsylvania.. 

Massachusetts. 

. 1,913 

Rhode Island. 

Michigan. 

. 3,469 


New Hampshire.... . 


Total, 

New York. 

. 4,294 



1879 . 

Iowa.. 

. 3,258 

Pennsylvania. 

Massachusetts. 

. 1,645 

Rhode Island. 

Minnesota.. 

. 2,868 

Wisconsin.... 

New York . 

. 4,437 


Ohio. 

. . 4,145 

Total, 


2,827 

12,455 


55,779 


5,682 

3,759 

11,454 


33,963 


3,219 

9,717 

387 


29,676 


THE HIGHEST VOTE CAST. 


The following table exhibits the highest vote cast in each State, and the 
year in which it was polled: 


California. 

Year. 

Highest 

Vote. 

356 

Missouri. 

Year. 

Highest 

Vote. 

64 

Connecticut. 


4,960 

Nebraska. 

. 1876 

1.599 

Delaware. 


236 

New Hampshire. 

. 1874 

2,097 

Illinois. 

. 1878 

2,228 

New Jersey. 

. 1877 

1,438 

Iowa. 


10,639 

New York. 

. 1874 

11,768 

Kansas . 


2,277 

Ohio. 

. 1873 

10,277 

Kentucky. 

. 1876 

818 

! Pennsylvania. 

. 1875 

13,244 

Maryland. 

.. 1876 

10 

! Rhode Island. 

. 1877 

12,455 

Massachusetts. 

.1877 

16,354 

Wisconsin. 


460 

Michigan. 

Minnesota. 

. 1874 

.1879 

3,937 

2,868 

Total votes 


98,185 


The foregoing tables were compiled from the official returns of the votes, as 
reported in the New York Tribune “Almanac,” McPherson’s “ Hand-book of 
Politics,” and the “American Annual Cyclopaedia.” At the State elections 
the vote on the first candidate is taken as the test. Iu a number of the States 
biennial elections are held, or nearly all the State officers are chosen one year, 
and only supreme judge or county and local officers are chosen the next year, 
so that the Prohibition vote only appears in alternate years. But no doubt 
thousands of votes were given by Prohibitionists for their tickets in all these 
States, which were not returned in the official canvass, or returned as “scat¬ 
tering.” Thus, in 1879 a full State ticket was nominated in California by the 
Prohibitionists, but no returns are given for it from the election. In Louisiana 
the Prohibitionists nominated a ticket, and several hundred votes were cast for 
it in New Orleans, but they were entirely rejected by the canvassers. In To¬ 
ledo, Ohio, thirty Prohibition votes were cast for the Prohibition State ticket, 
and some in other parts of the county, but none were reported. 

The Rhode Island vote is the only one in the above table of a mixed or 
“ fusion ” character. The Prohibitionists of that State, beginning in 1873, 
nominated full State tickets every year, but the temperance Republicans adopted 
all or part of their candidates. In 1874, when the largest fusion vote of 12,455 
was given for governor, the Republicans and Prohibitionists made separate no¬ 
minations for lieutenant-governor, on which the Republican vote was 7,679, and 
the Prohibition vote was 0,512. 

























































The Prohibition Party. 


47 


la 1870 Wendell Phillips, as candidate for governor, both in the Labor Re¬ 
form and Prohibition parties, received 21,946 votes; but it is estimated that 
about 7,000 were given by the Prohibitionists, and that is the vote entered in 
the above table. 


APPENDIX D. 

Constitutionality of Prohibitive LaAVs. 

The question of the constitutionality of such (prohibitory liquor) statutes, says Mr. Bishop, 
section 989 of his work on “ Statutory Crimes,” has been more frequently agitated than any other 
constitutional question presented in our tribunals. It will be found, however, that both the 
principles and essential features of varying laws upon this subject have been uniformly upheld 
by the highest courts, national and State, in every part of the land. See the cases collected in 
the “ United States Digest ” (first series), volume 7, page 806, et seq. Mr. Bishop’s “ Statutory 
Crimes” (sec. 995) says : “The State, in the enactment of its laws, must exercise its judgment 
concerning what acts tend to corrupt the public morals, impoverish the community, disturb the 
public repose, injure the other public interests, or even impair the comfort of individual mem¬ 
bers over whom its protecting watch and care are required ; and the power to judge of this ques¬ 
tion is necessarily reposed alone in the legislature, from whose decision no appeal can be taken 
directly or indirectly to any other department of the government. When, therefore, the legisla¬ 
ture, with this exclusive authority, has exercised its right of judgment concerning this legisla¬ 
tive question by the enactment of prohibitions, like those discussed in this chapter, all other de¬ 
partments of the government are bound by the decision, over which no court has jurisdiction.” 
“Any attempt to distinguish between the power to regulate and the power to prohibit finds no 
judicial support.”— Pitman's Alcohol and the State. 

Supreme Court Opinions. 

The following extracts are from the records of the Supreme Court of the 
United States : 

Chief Justice Taney said : 

“ If any State deems the retail and internal traffic in ardent spirits injurious to its citizens, 
and calculated to produce idleness, vice, or debauchery, I see nothing in the Constitution of the 
United States to prevent it from regulating or restraining the traffic, or from prohibiting it al¬ 
together, if it thinks proper.”—5 Howard, 577. 

Justice McLean said : 

“ A license to sell an article, foreign or domestic,'as a merchant or inn-keeper, or victualler, 
is a matter of police and revenue, within the power of the StateH—b Howard, 589. And again : 
“ It is the settled construction of every regulation of commerce that under the sanction of its 
general laws no person can introduce into a community malignant diseases, or anything which 
contaminates its morals or endangers its safety.”— Ibid. “If the foreign articles be injurious 
to the health or morals of the community, a State may, in the exercise of that great and compre¬ 
hensive police power which lies at the foundation of its prosperity, prohibit the sale of it .”— 
Ibid., 592. “ No one can claim a license to retail spirits as a matter of right.”— Ibid., 597. 

Justice Daniel said of imports that are cleared of all control of the govern¬ 
ment which permits their introduction : 

“ They are like all other property of the citizen, and should be equally the subjects of 
domestic regulation and taxation, whether owned by an importer or his vender, or may have 
been purchased by cargo, package, bale, piece, or yard, or by hogsheads, casks, or bottles.”—5 
Howard, 614. In answering the argument that the importer purchases the right to sell when 
he pays duties to the government, Justice Daniels continues to say : “ No such right as the one 
supposed is purchased by the importer, and no injury in any accurate sense is inflicted on him 
by denying to him the power demanded. He has not purchased and cannot purchase from the 
government that which it could not ensure to him—a sale independently of the law and policy 
of the States.'"—Ibid., 616. 


I 


43 


Brief History of Prohibition. 


Justice Woodbury said : 

“After articles have come within the territorial limits of States, whether on land or water, 
the destruction itself of what constitutes disease and death, and the longer continuance of such 
articles within their limits, or the terms and conditions of their continuance, when conflicting 
with their legitimate police, or with their power over internal commerce, or with their right of 
taxation over all persons and property within their jurisdiction, seems one of the first principles 
of State sovereignty, and indispensable to public safety.”—5 Howard, G30. 

J ustice Grier said : 

“ It is not necessary to array the appalling statistics of misery, pauperism, and crime which 
have their «rigin in the use and abuse of ardent spirits. The police power, which is exclusive¬ 
ly in the State, is competent to the correction of these great evils, and all measures of restraint 
or prohibition necessary to effect that purpose are within the scope of that authority ; and if a 
loss of revenue should accrue to the United States from a diminished consumption of ardent 
spirits, she will be a gainer of a thousand-fold in the health, wealth, and happiness of the peo¬ 
ple.”— Ibid., 532. 


Recent Opinions. 

While alcoholic stimulants are recognized as property, and entitled to the protection of law, 
ownership in them is subject to such restraints as are demanded by the highest considerations 
of public expediency. •Such enactments are regarded as police regulations, established for the 
prevention of pauperism and crime, for the abatement of nuisances, and the promotion of pub¬ 
lic health and safety. They are a just restraint of an injurious use of property which the legis¬ 
lature has authority to impose, and the extent to which such interference may be carried must 
rest exclusively in legislative wisdom where it is not controlled by fundamental law. It is a 
settled principle, essential to the rights of self-preservation in every organized community, that 
however absolute may be the owner’s title to his property, he holds it under the implied condi¬ 
tion “ that its use shall not work injury to the equal enjoyment and safety of others who have 
an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, nor be injurious to the community.”— Su¬ 
preme Court New Jersey , 1872. 

“ Possessed of the power of absolute prohibition under the Constitution, it seems to follow 
that any relaxation from a plenary exercise of such power, or qualified or conditional enact¬ 
ment by the legislature, by which license to sell may be obtained in the way and subject to the 
liabilities imposed by the act, cannot be an encroachment of legislative authority, unless, in¬ 
deed, the legislature should transcend some settled principles of fundamental law respecting 
the trial or mode of prosecution or punishment of the party charged with an infraction of the 
provisions of the act, or with having incurred some liability under it. Acting in obedience to 
those fundamental principles, in accordance with which the gnilt or liability of the party 
charged must first be ascertained and established, and the judgment of the law rendered 
against him, it seems competent for the legislature to attach such consequences, civil or criminal, 
to the mere act of sale as it pleases, even when such sale is made in pursuance of an authority 
of the legislature qualified or given for that purpose. Empowered to prohibit entirely , the legis¬ 
lature may license sub modo , or conditionally only.”— Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1873. 

“Under what is called the police power, the legislature has the right to, authorize the abate¬ 
ment of a public nuisance ; and the carrying on of an illegal traffic in intoxicating liquors, and 
the assembling of idle and vicious persons for that purpose is a nuisance, and may be so de¬ 
clared and abated according to low.—Illinois Supreme Court, 1873. 

“ In the exercise of its police power, a State has full power to prohibit, under penalties, the 
exercise of any trade or employment which is found to be hazardous or injurious to its citizens 
and destructive to the best interests of society, without providing compensation to those upon 
whom the prohibition rests .”—Michigan Supreme Court, The People vs. Ilawley. 


Published by the National Executive Committee of the Prohibition Reform 
Party, at 58 Reade Street, New York. 



BLACK BARREN SPRING WATER, 

JAMES BLACK, Lancaster, Pa., Proprietor. 

-- —♦- 


The properties of this Water are Tonic, Diuretic, and Diaphoretic, very agreeable to the 
taste. The attention of Physicians is called to this remarkably successful remedy for Bright’s 
Disease of the Kidneys, Diabetes,- Brickdust Deposit, Chronic Inflammation, and all Diseases of 
the Kidneys and Bladder; Liver Complaint, Dyspepsia, Dropsy, and Nervous Debility; Neu¬ 
ralgia, Rheumatism, and a disordered condition of the Stomach and Liver. For a fuller descrip¬ 
tion we refer to the pamphlet of the history of this Water, and the testimonies of Drs. Edward 
A. Spooner, A. G. B. Hinkle, George R. Morehouse, R. M. Girvin, eminent physicians of Phila¬ 
delphia, among others, with notable instances of cures of the above-named affections, and ref¬ 
erences to prominent gentlemen who have been benefited by‘its use. Prof. Pepper, in a lecture 
upon Diabetes before the medical students of the class of 1871 of the University of Pennsylvania, 
stated that it was necessary to resort to medicinal waters for this disease, and that he knew of 
none better than the Black Barren Spring Water of Lancaster County, Pa. 

The following is an analysis of the Black Barren Water, as made by Prof. B. H. Rand 
and Charles Cresson, of Philadelphia, Pa.: 

GRS. TO GILL. 


Silica and suspended matter. 1 .300 

Soda.0.526 

Magnesia. 1.080 

Sulphuric Acid.2 840 

With a trace of Chlorine.-..... 

Total.5.746 


The Medical and Surgical Reporter of August 26, 1871, contains a full description of the 
properties and curative effects of Black Barren Spring Water, by Dr. Francis W. Lewis, of 
Philadelphia, in which he says : “ In a recent journey through the Southern part of this State, 
near the Susquehanna River, my attention was called to a mineral spring, which seems to possess 
remarkable virtues.” After detailing a number of cases he specially names a case, under his 
care, of “malarial fever, followed by dropsy,” of an aggravated character, and says: “After 
suffering for two years, he was induced to drink this Water ; he took several pints every day, 
and in six weeks regained his former strength, appetite, weight, memory, and was entirely free 
from pain.” He concludes by saying, “Many other cases might be brought forward to show 
what this Water premises to do, but these are sufficient to demonstrate its value. This Water 
is pure, sparkling from nature’s laboratory, delicious to the taste, and free from all impurity of 
taste or smell, and has the property of keeping in glass for years unchanged.” 

The Black Barren Spring is located at Pleasant Grove, Lancaster County, Pa., in an 
elevated cultivated country, free from all malarial diseases. For circulars containing full de¬ 
scription of the Water and its curative power, means of public travel thereto, and prices, apply 
to JOHN BLACK, Jr., Druggist, 21 West Chestnut St., Lancaster, Pa.; GEO. II. MARK- 
LEY. Druggist, Harrisburg, Pa.; MUSSON & HOUSEKEEPER, 13th and Market St.. Phila., 
who will supply the Water in packages of Half-Gallon Bottles, 40 cents each ; per case of one 
dozen, $4 ; per Carboy of ten Gallons, $5, and by Carboy or Case at the Spring. Bottles and 
packages may be returned at cost, less freight. Reduction to the trade. 

THE BLACK BARREN SPRING HOUSE opened June 1, 1880. Board 
by the day, week ($7 to $10), or month. Newly-furnished rooms, large and airy ; shady lawn and 
grove. Delightful country walks and drives. For terms apply to 

J. W. THOMPSON, 


Pleasant Grove , Lancaster Co,, Pa 




























\ 



The Executive Committee of the National Prohibition Reform Party have pub¬ 
lished the following able and important documents, which should be placed in 
the hands of every voter in the land. These are printed in clear, plain type, 

large octavo size, and will be sent by mail or express to any address. 

- No. of Price per 

Pages. 100 1,000 

An Adequate Remedy for a National Evil. 

By Rev. John Russell. It shows the Prohibition 
Party is a full and adequate remedy for the “ gigantic 

crime of crimes ”,. 8 $0 60 $6 00 

A Prohibition Party a Reliable Agency. 

By Rev. John Russell. Presents the Prohibition 
Party as a feasible and reliable agency for securing 
the enactment and execution of prohibitory laws... 4 30 3 00 

The Old Parties Unreliable. By J. F. Hume. 

This document answers the question whether it is 
probable that the Democratic and Republican par¬ 
ties, jointly or either of them, will become a reliable 
agency for the enactment and execution of prohibi¬ 
tory laws. 4 30 3 00 

Is there a Necessity for a Prohibition 
Party? By James Black. An able and conclu¬ 
sive argument upon the necessity of a Prohibition 
Party and the duty of prohibitionists to support it.. 20 1 50 15 00 

5. Gen. Neal Dow’s Letter of Acceptance, 
and the Platform of the National Convention at 

Cleveland. 4 30 3 00 

O. Proceedings of the National Prohibition 
Convention , held at Cleveland, June 17. With 
addresses by James Black, Esq.; Rev. A. A. Miner, 

D.D.; Mrs. M. McClellan Brown, and the entire de¬ 
bates, from notes of a short-hand reporter, together 
with Resolutions, List of Delegates, Portraits of 
General Neal Dow and Rev. II. A. Thompson. 


No. 

1 . 


2 . 


3. 


4 . 


Single copies, 15 cents... 

40 

10 00 


7. Biographical Sketch of Gen. Neal Dow , 
with Portrait. . 

4 

30 

3 00 

8. Biographical Sketch of Rev. IT. A. Thomp¬ 
son, D.D. By Mrs. M. McClellan Brown. 

4 

30 

3 00 

9. Prohibition and its Relative Political Re¬ 
forms. By Hon G. T. Stewart.. 

16 

1 20 

12 00 

10. Portrait of Gen. Neal Dow. Printed on 
tinted board, sixe 10x12. 

10 cents each. 

11. Hon. James Black’s opening Address at 
the Cleveland Convention. 

8 

60 

6 00 

12. Brief History of Prohibition and of the 
Prohibition Reform Party. By Hon James Black . 

48 

3 60 

36 00 


Any of the above will be sent to any address, post paid, in large or small 
quantities, at the above rates. Arrangements have been made to have publi¬ 
cations supplied by J. N. Stearns, 58 Reade Street, New York, to whom all 
orders should be addressed. <?. T. STEWART, Chairman. 

C. A. IIOVEY, See’y Nat’l Pro. Com. 
























